The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with principles of natural justice in cases of transfer and the need for transfers to be made to equivalent posts, as well as the violation of constitutional provisions such as Article 14, 16, and 311 due to the reduction in rank and the penal consequences suffered by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT:

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in various writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein whereby and whereunder the order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2002 as also the order passed in the Review Petition arising therefrom dated 14.08.2003 were set aside.

3. The said writ petitions came up for consideration by the High Court in the following circumstances.

4. In the Education Department of the State of Maharastra there exists a cadre of Assistant Teachers. There are 16 categories of posts in the said cadre. Respondents were directly appointed as Assistant Deputy Education Inspector (for short, "ADEI") pursuant to an advertisement issued by the State of Maharashtra on 01.10.1992. Advertisements for other posts in the same cadre were also issued, namely, for the posts of Asstt. Teacher, Physical Education Teacher, Science Supervisor etc. pursuant whereto appointments were made in the said post. However, no seniority list was published for a long time. A purported seniority list was published only on 09.08.2001. Allegedly, before publishing the said final seniority list objections were invited.

5. Respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, who were appointed as Assistant Deputy Education Inspector, were transferred to the post of Asstt. Project Officer/Asstt. Teacher and those who had been working as Asstt. Teacher/Asstt. Project Officer were transferred to the posts of ADEI. Indisputably, by reason of such orders of transfer, the respondents suffered civil consequences as the quantum of their pay was reduced.

6. Original applications were filed by them before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, alleging :

(i)Orders for transfer on the basis of provisional seniority list was without jurisdiction;.

(ii)Those who were holding the posts of Asstt. Teacher could not have been transferred as ADEI as they were not qualified therefor; and

(iii)By reason of such transfers, the pay scale of the respondents would be reduced

7. By reason of an order dated 13.03.2002 the said original applications were dismissed. Review applications filed thereagainst were also dismissed. The High Court, however, in the writ petitions filed by the respondents in terms of its judgment dated 22.03.2006 which is impugned before us upon noticing the scales of pay payable to the different classes of employees, inter alia, opined :

"What emerges from the above discussion is that the post of A.D.E.I had been recognized as distinct post under the recruitment rules. The appointment to the said posts is both by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. The promotion is from the post amongst others of Assistant Masters, A.D.E.I.s have promotional avenue to the post of Deputy Education Inspector to which posts the other posts in Grade III are not entitled for consideration. The post of A.D.E.I. as set out earlier carries higher pay scale than those other posts. In these circumstances, the respondent authorities could not have clubbed these posts under a common seniority or for that matter made the posts transferable from one to another. This would be treating holders of dissimilar posts as belonging to one class, which they are not. This will also be in violation of the recruitment rules and affecting the promotional avenue of A.D.E.I.s. Though there is no right to promotion, there is right to be considered. By the action of transfer, this right of the Petitioner has been affected. This clearly amounts to an infringement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."8.It was furthermore held that transfer of persons holding substantive posts carrying lower time scale of pay would be violative of Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India. It was stated :

"The order entailed loss of pay as well as loss of seniority and postponement of future chances of promotion. It is in that context the Apex Court held in that