Transfers of employees from one Taluka to another do not violate laws if supported by updated governmental resolutions.

JUDGMENT ( PER : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

(1) Heard Mr. Aditya Raktade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State, and Mr. Kedar Lad for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4-Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. By consent of the parties the Petition is being disposed of inally at the admission stage.

(2) SUBJECT MATTER:

(2.1) The Petitioners are teachers working in the primary schools under the services of the Respondent No. 3-The Chief Executive Oicer, Kolhapur Zilla Parishad. All the Petitioners hold the post of Kendra Pramukh [Cluster Head]. The Petitioners challenge their transfers from one Taluka to another Taluka in the Kolhapur District.

(3) FACTS IN BRIEF:

(3.1) By an administrative order dated 22^nd May 2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, (i) Petitioner No. 1 was transferred from Chandgad Taluka to Gadhinglaj Taluka; (ii) Petitioner No. 2 was transferred from Shahuwadi Taluka to Hatkanangale Taluka; and (iii) Petitioner No. 3 was transferred from Chandgad Taluka to Shahuwadi Taluka.

(3.2) These transfers are stated to have been efected to meet administrative exigencies. The Petitioners however contend that the post of Kendra Pramukh stands excluded from district-level transfers and that the impugned orders have been issued in contravention of the Government Resolution dated 15^th May 2014. On this basis, the Petitioners initially recorded their protest against the said transfer orders before Respondent No. 3, and later iled an appeal to the Respondent no.2.

(3.3) However, Petitioners’ objections have been turned down by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Petitioners have already joined at the transferred places, however recording their protest. Vide present Petition the Petitioners sought to convince that they could not have been transferred in view of the Government Resolution of 2014.

(4) Petitioner's Argument:-

(4.1) Mr. Aditya Raktade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners, have even joined their respective places of transfer under protest. The Petitioners further submit that they preferred appeals on 28^th May 2025 challenging the transfer orders. However, as the said appeals came to be dismissed by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12^th August 2025, the Petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Petition.

(4.2) Mr. Aditya Raktade would submit that the Petitioners squarely fall within the deinition of Primary Teachers as contemplated under Clause 1(d) of the Government Resolution dated 15^th May 2014. He submits that Class-C employees, including Primary and Secondary Teachers are expressly excluded from administrative transfers under the said Government Resolution.

(4.3) Mr. Aditya Raktade, would submit that Respondent No. 3 efected the transfers under the mistaken impression that the post of Kendra Pramukh does not fall within the deinition of a Primary Teacher.

(4.4) As such, Mr. Aditya Raktade, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the transfer orders, as well as the orders passed by Respondent No. 3 on 22^nd May 2025 and 12^th August 2025, are liable to be quashed and set aside those being contrary to the Government Resolution dated 15^th May 2014.

(5) Respondent’s argument: -

(5.1) Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, however submits that the Petition is misconceived. He further submits that the Petitioners have failed to bring on record certain relevant facts as well as the subsequent policies adopted by various Zilla Parishads pursuant to the instructions issued by the Rural Development Department, Government of Maharashtra.

(5.2) Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Petitioners had in fact voluntarily joined at their respective places of transfer on 31^st May 2025, and therefore they are now estopped from challenging the transfer orders.

(5.3) Mr. S. B. Kalel, further submits that transfer is an incidence of service, and no interference is warrante