- Case
- DIPAK RAMESH BHISE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 14-01-2026)
- Law
- N/A, Writ Petition.
Facts: Several teachers (petitioners 1-6), initially appointed as Shikshan Sevaks and later made permanent as Assistant Teachers, were transferred under the State Government's inter-district transfer policy. They submitted their preferred postings online as per a Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024. Despite attending counseling on 30.09.2025 and indicating their preferences based on available vacancies, they were posted to Zilla Parishad Primary School at Majalgaon, a location they did not opt for. They contended this violated the Government Resolution and their counseling preferences.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the orders dated 19.09.2025 and 16.10.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 and a direction to respondents No. 3 and 4 to grant them postings as per their preferences submitted during counseling. The court heard the matter for final disposal at the stage of admission.
Issue: Whether the respondent authorities were justified in denying petitioners 1 to 5 postings to the vacant posts they opted for during counseling, and what relief, if any, is petitioner 6 entitled to, given that the post he preferred is no longer vacant?
Holding: The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondent authorities to transfer petitioners 1 to 5 to the posts they opted for during counseling, as those posts were admittedly vacant. Regarding petitioner No. 6, the Court directed the authorities to consider his claim for posting at a nearby Zilla Parishad where a vacancy is available, in accordance with law and the applicable Government Resolution.
Reasoning: The Court noted the admitted position that the preferential posts chosen by petitioners 1 to 5 during counseling were vacant. Therefore, there was no justification for denying them posting to those posts. The Court did not delve into the wider merits of the controversy, focusing on the fact that the preferred posts were available. As for petitioner No. 6, since the preferred post was no longer available, the Court directed the authorities to consider him for other suitable vacancies.
