(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10622 OF 2010 Bhartiya Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha, Lohara, Taluka : Lohara, District : Osmanabad, Through its President, Shri Dinkar s/o. Shankarrao Patil, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. Nagur, Taluka : Lohara, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 3. Sudhakar s/o. Bhanudas Gaikwad, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Head Master, Vasant Dada Patil High School & Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Junior College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Lohara, Taluka : Lohara, District : Osmanabad, R/o. Lohara, Taluka : Lohara, District : Osmanabad. (2) 4. Urmila Vasantrao Patil, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Nandanwan Apartment, Behind Pushpak Mangal Karyalaya, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. 5. Ramesh s/o. Shankarrao Patil, Age : 51 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Nagur, Taluka : Lohara, District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.L. Tikle, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010 (3) COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13th October 2010, passed by the respondent no. 2 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, thereby holding that the respondent no.4 herein is entitled to be continued as Head Master at the school run by the petitioner / management at Lohara (District : Aurangabad). 2. The undisputed facts are as follows : (a) There are two schools run by the petitioner / management, one at Lohara and another at Nagur. Undisputedly, the school at Lohara is attached with Junior College. The respondent no.4 herein was working as Head Master at Lohara. She was transferred, according to the petitioner, vide resolution of the management, dated 23rd August 2009. The respondent no.4, challenging that, filed Writ Petition No. 6302/2009. However, it appears that when the petition was heard, the respondent no.4 stated before the Court, that the transfer order was withdrawn and sought liberty to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the Education Officer upheld that the transfer of the respondent no.4, at Nagur, was not valid and she was entitled to be continued at Lohara, vide order dated 23rd August 2009. (4) (b) Contending that the Education Officer had passed the order, misinterpreting the orders passed by this Court, Writ Petition came to be filed by the respondent no.3 herein, being Writ Petition No. 742/2010, who, according to the petitioner, was appointed as Head Master at Lohara. This Court upheld the contention of the petitioner, that the Education Officer has misread the orders passed by this Court and, therefore, directed the respondent / Education Officer to reconsider the matter and also directed to decide as to whether the transfer of respondent no.5 (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6302 of 2009) has validly cancelled. In pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, the impugned order has been passed holding therein that the respondent no.4 is entitled to be continued at Lohara. Heing aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 3. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Education Officer has totally disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. He submits that when this Court has specifically directed the Education Officer, to decide as to whether the order cancelling transfer of the respondent no.4 was valid or not, inspite of that, no finding is recorded in that respect. He further submits that when the transfer order is passed by the competent authority i.e. the (5) management, the so called Secretary had no jurisdiction to cancel the same and this aspect has not been considered by the Education Officer. He further submits that since the petition filed by the respondent no.4, challenging her transfer, was withdrawn, her transfer order has attained finality and as such, the order passed by the Education Officer is not sustainable. 4. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents have supported the impugned order. 5. We have perused the order passed by the Education Officer. The Education Officer, while passing the order, has considered the import of the Government Resolution dated 1st October 1984. We have also perused the Government Resolution dated 1st October 1984. The said Government Resolution specifically provides that if a particular management is running more than one schools and some of the schools are attached with classes of Junior College, then while making appointment of Head Master of a school to which a Junior College is attached, the senior most teacher amongst all the schools would only be appointed as Head Master of the school to which Junior College is attached. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.4 herein is the senior most teacher working in the schools run by the (6) petitioner / management. In that view of the matter, transfer of respondent no.4, from a school to which Junior College is attached, to the school to which Junior College is not attached, was in contravention of the Government Resolution dated 1st October 1984. 6. In so far as the contention of the petitioner, regarding transfer of respondent no.4 from Lohara to Nagur having attained finality in view of withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 6302/2009, is concerned, we are unable to accept the said contention. The said petition was withdrawn as the petitioner therein, respondent no.4 herein, pointed out that her transfer was subsequently cancelled and, as such, she had no grievance subsisting. 7. The Government Resolution dated 1st October 1984 is still in vogue. As such, the transfer order, which was issued contrary to the said Government Resolution, was not permissible in law. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the Education Officer is in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 1st October 1984 8. It is further to be noted that in the Review Application filed by the present respondent no.4, in Writ Petition No. (7) 742/2010, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have observed thus : " In that light of the matter, therefore, the relief which the present non-applicant No.5 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 742/2010 had sought for and the directions issued by this Court pertaining to the decision on the pending proposal were infructuous when this Writ Petition came to be allowed by us. Since the proposal had already been decided, the directions issued by us in our judgment dated 29-4-2010 were infractuous and futile." It can, thus, be seen that the very contention of the present petitioner, that the order, dated 29th April 2010, has been disobeyed, is wholly without substance. The Division Bench itself has observed that the directions issued by this Court, in the judgment dated 29th April 2010 were infructuous and futile. 9. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (8) 10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10622