Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. MEHARE, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Smt. Archana W/o Shailendra Gaikwad - Appellant
Versus
Shri Shyam s/o Shivajirao Lohi - Respondents
Writ Petition No.8511 of 2024, Writ Petition No.9474 of 2024
Decided on : 18-03-2025
(A) Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Order dated 30/07/2024 - Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 - Writ petitions challenging modification of promotional postings - Tribunal quashed the Government Resolution, citing lack of reasons for modification and potential arbitrariness in decision-making - The petitioner sought posting at Pune for health reasons, while the respondent challenged the modification as arbitrary and unauthorized. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 20)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope and limits - The court emphasized that modifications to promotional postings must adhere to procedural fairness and must not be arbitrary - The absence of reasons for such modifications can lead to judicial intervention. (Paras 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was promoted to RTO Group-A and sought a transfer to Pune due to family health issues. The Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 modified her posting, leading to a challenge from the respondent, who claimed the modification was arbitrary. (Paras 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the modification arbitrary due to lack of reasoning and potential influence by the petitioner, thus quashing the Government Resolution. (Paras 9, 20)
Issues: The main issues included whether the modification of postings was arbitrary and if proper procedures were followed in the decision-making process. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of reasoning for the modification indicated arbitrariness and warranted judicial review, reaffirming that decisions must be made transparently and justifiably. (Paras 19, 20)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed; the Tribunal's order upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Sandipkumar C. More, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the rival parties.
2. The subject matter under challenge in both these writ petitions, is the order dated 30/07/2024 in Original Application No.600 of 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’). The learned Tribunal under the impugned order has quashed and set aside Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 issued by respondent No.2-State in Writ Petition No.8511 of 2024 under which modification in the posting on promotion given to the petitioner in the same petition i.e. Smt. Archana Shailendra Gaikwad affecting the earlier promotional posting granted to the present respondent No.1 – Shri Shyam Shivajirao Lohi in this petition. It is to be noted that under Writ Petition N.9474 of 2024 the State through Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Transport) Department Mantralaya, Mumbai, has also challenged the same judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, both petitions are for quashing the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 under which the petitioner – Archana has been posted as a RTO Group-A at Pune, whereas respondent Shyam Lohi is posted at Chandrapur as a RTO Group-A. To avoid ambiguity, the parties are referred to by their names.
3. Background facts are as under :
Petitioner – Archana joined the service as a Assistant RTO after her selection through MPSC on 04/09/2002. Subsequently on 26/08/2015 she was promoted as a Deputy RTO and in the month of June, 2018 she was posted at Akaluj, District Solapur as a Deputy RTO. While in service, the petitioner – Archana had made several representations / applications to the Principal Secretary with request that she be posted at Pune or nearby place like Pimpri-Chinchwad due to health issue of her husband as well as ailments of her mother aged about 78 years. Additionally, she personally visited the Principal Secretary and requested for such posting. However, earlier Principal Secretary got transferred on 26/02/2024 and in his place a new officer joined. On 28/02/2024 the petitioner – Archana again made a fresh application before new Principal Secretary for the same request. However, in the first week of March, the preparation for Lok-Sabha elections was going on. On 16/03/2024, the State issued a Government Resolution whereby in all 23 Deputy RTO were temporarily promoted as RTO Group-A and they were given postings to the respective places as mentioned in the said Government Resolution. As per the said Government Resolution, Shyam Lohi was given promotional posting at Pune District. Despite issuance of said Government Resolution, the said order of promotion and posting was not implemented due to Code of Conduct on account of Lok-Sabha elections. As such, the petitioner - Archana remained at Akaluj on her earlier posting and was a Nodal officer at Solapur District for poling which took place on 07/05/2024, 13/05/2024 and 20/05/2024. After poling was over, the petitioner – Archana again visited the Joint Secretary and reminded him about her pending applications since 2020 and also the recent application dated 28/02/2024 requesting for posting her at Pune on account of medical treatment of her husband and her mother. Thereafter, on 13/06/2024 the State Government and Competent Authority considered the request of the petitioner – Archana and by issuing the impugned Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 and modified the places of promotional postings of the petitioner – Archana as well as the respondent – Shyam Lohi. Accordingly, the petitioner – Archana was posted at Pune as a RTO Pune whereas the respondent – Shyam Lohi was posted as a RTO Chandrapur. The petitioner – Archana as per the said Government Resolution joined her post at Pune on 14/06/2024. However, feeling dissatisfied with the said Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 the respondent – Shyam Lohi filed Original Applic
Judicial review is warranted when administrative decisions lack reasoning and appear arbitrary, particularly in matters of promotional postings.
Judicial review is warranted when administrative decisions lack reasoning and appear arbitrary, particularly in matters of promotional postings.
Judicial interference in employee transfers limited unless mala fide or statutory violation; administrative guidelines not enforceable rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of transfer and posting should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, based on administrative exigency and public interes....
The court upheld the employer's discretion in posting decisions, finding no malice or illegality in the posting order after promotion.
Transfer orders in public service must be made based on administrative necessity and public interest, and cannot be influenced by political pressure or arbitrary decisions.
Spouse posting policy requires specific reasons for denial; vague 'public interest' insufficient, allowing promotion relinquishment for retention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
