IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(ORIGINAL CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022

(A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES
ASSOCIATION …PETITIONER

VERSUS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

I.A. OF 2022
APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF

[PAPER BOOK]
(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: DILIP ANNASAHEB TAUR

 FORMAT OF INDEX

SI Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to Remar

No which its belongs ks
Part I Part II
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
1 Court Fees 2130/-
2. Listing Proforma A-A1 A-A1
3. Cover Page of Paper Book A-2
4. Index of Record of Proceedings A-3
5. Defect List A/6-A/9
6. Note Sheet NSI
7. Synopsis and List of Dates B-
8. Writ Petition with affidavit
9. ANNEXURE-P-1
true copy of the letter bearing No.A-

1201/2021/2780 dated 31/12/2021

issued by the Registrar General of

High Court of Bombay.

10. ANNEXURE-P-2
true copy of the Transfer policy of
Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High
Court
11. ANNEXURE-P-3
true copy of the representation dated

23/03/22 submitted by petitioner

association to Hon’ble High Court.

12. ANNEXURE-P-4
true copy of Annual General Transfers

2022 for District Judges dated

06.04.2022

13. ANNEXURE-P-5
true copy of the Annual General

Transfers 2022 for Senior Civil Judges

dated 06.04.2022

14. ANNEXURE-P-6
true copy of the Annual General

Transfers 2022 for Civil Judges Junior

Division dated 06.04.2022.

15. ANNEXURE-P-7
true copy of the responses submitted

by the Judicial Officers in Google

Form Excel Sheet.

16. ANNEXURE-P-8
true copy of the representation dated

12.04.2022 submitted by Petitioner

State Judges Association.

17. ANNEXURE-P-9
true copy of the Report submitted by

Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta on

 Human Research Development

Strategy.

18. ANNEXURE-P-10
true copy of the Google Survey Sheet

and Pie Chart showing all the results

and inferences from the survey.

19. I.A. NO. Of 2022

Application for interim relief
20. F/M
21. V/A/
 SYNOPSIS

That the present Writ Petition is filed by the Maharashtra State

Judges Association is registered under The Societies Registration

Act, 1860. It is formed and registered with primary objective of

overall welfare and improvement of service conditions of 2500

Judges working in sub-ordinate courts of Maharashtra State.

That the petitioner Maharashtra State Judges Association is

constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court because the Hon'ble

Bombay High Court in Annual General Transfers, 2022 (For short,

AGT-2022) has arbitrarily issued transfer orders of the Judges of

the Subordinate Judiciary in the State of Maharashtra.

Since the aforesaid transfers and postings of the subordinate

Judges have been made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and

Hon'ble Administrative Judges of the Bombay High Court, the

petitioner Association is not having any other efficacious remedy

than to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 read with

Articles 21 & 14 of the Constitution of India against the arbitrary

transfers of the Judges in the State of Maharashtra.

In Maharashtra there is no comprehensive and reasonable Transfer

policy [declared or published] for judicial officers. Since last

many years Annual General Transfers are made by circulation of

letters by calling two options from the judicial officers from each

of the six zones except the regional zone in which the officer is

working at the time of transfer.

Likewise this time on 31.12.2021, Registrar General of the

Bombay High Court has issued a letter bearing No.A-

1201/2021/2780 and asked the Judicial Officers working in the

State of Maharashtra to submit their transfer options through

online portal on or before 12.01.2022. Accordingly, Judicial

Officers have submitted their transfer options online as directed

by the High Court till 12.01.2022.

As per the aforesaid letter dated 31.12.2021, the judicial officers

were compelled to submit two stations from each regional zone

and they can be transferred to any of the six zones. There is no

specific guideline in the aforesaid letter interalia mandating that,

every judicial officer has to serve in each of the six zones and

they would not be transferred again in the same zone without

serving all the other zones.

However, this time High Court has transferred almost 90 % judicial

officers in the regional zones where they have not earlier worked.
This resulted into transfer of majority of judicial officers at the

distance of more than 500 kms.

The aforesaid letter further states that if the Judicial Officers get

posting of any place of their choice, no representation for change

of posting shall be entertained and they are expected to observe

self-restraint while making representation, if posting is given to

them from any of the 10 options submitted by him/ her.

As there is no comprehensive and reasonable Transfer Policy the

High Court gets leeway/discretion to transfer the judicial officers

anywhere at the pleasure of Administrative officers. Many judicial

officers have been transferred and posted at those stations which

they have not opted for in any of the 10 options submitted by

them.

Most of the judicial officers from western Maharashtra have been

transferred to Vidarbha region and officers from Vidarbha region

have been inconveniently posted in Western Maharashtra region.

Some judicial officers have cancer patients in their family.

However, their requests for convenient transfers are ignored and

they are transferred to places of remote location where adequate

medical facilities are not available.

The decision to post all officers beyond 400-500 km from their

native is not at all fair but unreasonable. On the other hand, High

Court continue to favor some judicial officer by posting them in

the same zone repeatedly.

Hence the present Writ Petition

 LIST OF DATES

That the present Writ Petition is filed by the

Maharashtra State Judges Association is

registered under The Societies Registration Act,

1860. It is formed and registered with primary

objective of overall welfare and improvement of

service conditions of 2500 Judges working in

sub-ordinate courts of Maharashtra State.

31.12.2021 The High Court of Bombay by its letter dated

31.12.2021 called upon Options (Preferences)

from the Judicial Officers for Annual General

Transfers 2022.

12.01.2022 Last date of submission for the Judicial Officers

who were due for transfer to submit Options

(Preferences) to the Bombay High Court for

Annual General Transfers 2022.

10.02.2022 Recently this Hon’ble Court in the matter of

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1137 OF 2018

titled...Mrs X VERSUS REGISTRAR GENERAL,

HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER it is

observed thus:-

“39. No doubt that the said Transfer

Policy is only a set of Guidelines for
internal administration of the District
Judiciary issued by the MP High Court.
However, while exercising its functions on
the administrative side, the MP High
Court would also be a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India. We may gainfully refer to the
following observations made by this Court
in the case of Food Corporation of India
v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed
Industries(1993) 1 SCC 71 :
“8. The mere reasonable or legitimate
expectation of a citizen, in such a
situation, may not by itself be a distinct
enforceable right, but failure to consider
and give due weight to it may render the
decision arbitrary, and this is how the
requirement of due consideration of a
legitimate expectation forms part of the
principle of non arbitrariness, a necessary
concomitant of the rule of law. Every
legitimate expectation is a relevant
factor requiring due consideration in a
fair decision making process. Whether the
 expectation of the claimant is reasonable
or legitimate in the context is a question
of fact in each case. Whenever the
question arises, it is to be determined not
according to the claimant's perception but
in larger public interest wherein other
more important considerations may
outweigh what would otherwise have
been the legitimate expectation of the
claimant. A bona fide decision of the
public authority reached in this manner
would satisfy the requirement of non
arbitrariness and withstand judicial
scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate
expectation gets assimilated in the rule of
law and operates in our legal system in
this manner and to this extent.

10.03.2022 In S K Nausad Rahaman & Ors.Versus Union of

India and Ors. decided on 10.03.2022 while

considering the issue of transfers has held thus-

“There can be no manner of doubt that

the State, both in its role as a model
employer as well as an institution which
is subject to constitutional norms, must
bear in mind the fundamental right to
substantive equality when it crafts the
policy even for its own employees”.
23.03.2022 The Petitioner Judges Association submitted the

representation to Hon’ble Bombay High Court

requesting it to consider the transfer options

submitted by judicial officer with Human

approach and to adopt comprehensive Transfer

Policy on the lines of the existing policy by

Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Court.

06.04.2022 The Bombay High Court has issued three

separate lists of Annual General Transfers 2022

for District Judges, Senior Civil Judges and Civil

Judges Junior Division.

08.04.2022 The Petitioner Judges Association has called the

information from the Judicial Officers in respect

of proposed transfers as to whether they got

convenient and opted (choice) posting(s).

11.04.2022 Most of the Judicial Officers have informed the

Judges Association that their options have not

been considered and that they have been

transferred to the place (station) which they

have not opted for and the same is at far

 distance from their native place and thus most

inconvenient to them.

12.04.2022 The Petitioner Judges Association through its

President has submitted a representation before

the High Court to withheld the Annual General

Transfers 2022 and that the Judicial Officers

may be posted within a radius of 300 kilometres

from their native place by giving preference to

their options. Association has prayed for

framing a new Transfer Policy in the light of

the Baseline Report submitted by Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Dipankar Datta (as his Lordship was

then), the current Chief Justice of the

Bombay High Court, on Human Research

Development Strategy.

20.04.2022 In the light of the law laid down by this Hon'ble

Court, decision of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice

and Hon'ble Administrative Judges of the

Bombay High Court to arbitrarily transfer the

Judicial Officers in the State of Maharashtra is

arbitrary and unjustifiable. Hon'ble High Court

 should not have transferred the Subordinate

Judges arbitrarily and so need for a Transfer

Policy providing in detail, the procedure

required to be followed with regard to effecting

the transfer of the Judicial Officers, their

tenure at a particular posting, the

circumstances in which the case should be

considered for permitting the Judicial Officers

to stay beyond the prescribed period and the

manner in which the representation is to be

considered etc.

04.2022 Hence, this Writ Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORIGINAL CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022

(A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF:

The Maharashtra State Judges Association

through its President
Shri Dilip S. Ghumare,
Address: Aurangabad District Court,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra- 431005 …PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Bombay High Court,
through its Registrar General,
Fort, Mumbai. 400032 .

2. State of Maharashtra,
Through – Secretary,
Law & Judiciary Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. 400032 ...RESPONDENTS.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF

MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR

DIRECTION

TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE

NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present petition is being filed for challenging the

unjust and arbitrary Annual General Transfer orders issued by

Respondent No.1 on 06/04/2022. The petitioner Maharashtra State

Judges Association is registered under The Societies Registration

Act, 1860. It is formed and registered with primary objective of

overall welfare and improvement of service conditions of Judges

working in sub-ordinate courts of Maharashtra State.

1A. The Petitioner Judges Association through its President has

submitted a representation before the High Court to withheld the

Annual General Transfers 2022 and that the Judicial Officers may

be posted within a radius of 300 kilometres from their native place

by giving preference to their options. Association has prayed for

framing a comprehensive and reasonable Transfer Policy in the

light of Baseline Report submitted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice

Dipankar Datta (as his Lordship was then), the current Chief

Justice of the Bombay High Court, on Human Research

Development Strategy. However, no action is taken in this

representation.
2. All judges working in Maharashtra Judicial Service are

members of the petitioner Association. Members of petitioner

Association have been appointed as Judges of the subordinate

Courts by His Excellency the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra in

consultation with the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The petitioner

submits that, service conditions of the judicial officers have been

dealt with by this Hon’ble Court for nearly three decades in many

cases. That the petitioner Association is prosecuting present

cause because it strongly feels that it is duty bound to bring the

relevant facts in respect of the Transfers and Postings of the

Judicial Officers in the State of Maharashtra to the Notice of this

Hon'ble Court.

3. That the petitioner Association most humbly submits that

there is violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

while issuing Annual General Transfer Orders of 2022 on the part

of Respondent No 1.

4. That the petitioner Association is constrained to approach

this Hon'ble Court because the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in

Annual General Transfers, 2022 (For short, AGT-2022) has

arbitrarily transferred the Judicial Officers working under its

control in the State of Maharashtra. Since the transfers and

postings of the Judicial Officers have been made by the

Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Administrative Judges of

the Bombay High Court, petitioner Association is not having any

other efficacious remedy than to approach this Hon’ble Court

under Article 32 read with 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India

against the arbitrary transfers of the Judicial Officers in the

State of Maharashtra. It has not approached any other Court for

the reliefs solicited in the present petition.

5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE.

5.1. The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court has issued a

letter bearing No.A-1201/2021/2780 dated 31/12/2021 and

thereby called upon the Judicial Officers working in the State

of Maharashtra to submit their transfer options online on or

before 12.01.2022. Annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE-P-1 (Page No. to ) is a true copy of the

letter bearing No.A-1201/2021/2780 dated 31/12/2021

issued by the Registrar General of High Court of Bombay.

5.2 The Judicial Officers have submitted their transfer options

online as directed by the High Court till 12.01.2022.

 Thereafter on 23/03/2022 petitioner Association

submitted the representation to Hon’ble Bombay High

Court requesting it to consider the transfer options

submitted by judicial officer with Human approach and to

adopt comprehensive Transfer Policy on the lines of existing

transfer policies of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High

Court. Annexed hereto marked as ANNEXURE-P-2 (Page No.

to ) is a true copy of the Transfer policy

of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Court. Annexed

hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-P-3 (Page No. to )

is a true copy of the representation dated 23/03/22

submitted by petitioner association to Hon’ble High Court.

5.3 The High Court has issued Annual General Transfers 2022 on

06.04.2022. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-P-4

(Page No. to ) is true copy of Annual General Transfers

2022 for District Judges dated 06.04.2022. Annexed hereto

and marked as ANNEXURE-P-5 (Page No. to ) is a

true copy of the Annual General Transfers 2022 for Senior

Civil Judges dated 06.04.2022. Annexed hereto and marked

as ANNEXURE-P-6 (Page No. to ) is a true copy of

 the Annual General Transfers 2022 for Civil Judges Junior

Division dated 06.04.2022.

5.4 Judicial Officers were disappointed to find out that they

have been transferred and posted at those stations, which

they have not opted for. The Petitioner Association has

therefore called the response of Judicial Officers on Google

Sheet by conducting a Survey. Annexed hereto and marked

as ANNEXURE-P-7 (Page No. to ) is a true copy of

the responses submitted by the Judicial Officers.

5.5 The Petitioner State Judges Association has submitted

representation before the High Court to withheld the Annual

General Transfers on 12th April 2022 and requested that the

Judicial Officers may be posted within a radius of 300

kilometres from their native place by giving preference to

their options. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-P-

8 (Page No. to ) is a true copy of the representation

dated 12.04.2022 submitted by Petitioner State Judges

Association. The Association has also prayed for framing a

new Transfer Policy in the light of the Baseline Report

submitted by Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta on Human

 Research Development Strategy. Annexed hereto and

marked as ANNEXURE-P-9 (Page No.

to ) is a true copy of the Report submitted by Hon'ble

Justice Dipankar Datta on Human Research Development

Strategy.

5.6. After the declaration of Transfers the petitioner Association

has conducted a sample survey in Google Excel Sheet. The

Google Survey Sheet contains the information of about 466

judicial officers who have been transferred in AGT 2022. In

the survey it is found that, nearly 85% judicial officers have

not been transferred to their first six preferred choice

postings. Nearly 92% judicial officers are either disappointed

or not happy with their proposed transfers. Nearly 50%

judicial officers have been posted at more than 500 kms

distance form their native place. About 20% judicial officers

shave been posted at the distance between 400- 500 kms and

15% judicial officers shave been posted at the distance

between 400- 500 kms. During the survey more than 90%

judicial officers have opined that, they would suffer many

family problems and hardships due to their proposed

transfer. Resultantly, their performance would not be at the

 optimum level and they would not be able to work freely

from all kinds of mental barriers. Annexed hereto and

marked as ANNEXURE-P-10 (Page No. to ) is

a true copy of the Google Survey Sheet and Pie Chart showing

all the results and inferences from the survey.

6. That it has been stated in the letter (Annexure P-1) by the

High Court that the Judicial Officers shall give two stations of their

choice from each zone as per their priority excluding the zone of

present posting and that if required number of stations are not

given by them, it will be treated that they are willing to be posted

anywhere in the State of Maharashtra. It further states that if the

Judicial Officers get posting of any place of their choice, no

representation for change of posting shall be entertained and that

they are expected to observe self restraint while making

representation, if choice posting is given to them. Much is stated

impliedly in these clauses of the letter which may not be discussed

or dilated here.

7. The Petitioner Association most humbly submits that the

transfer order has been issued in utter disregard to the contents

of the above mentioned letter. Same is evident from a bare

reading of the options (preferences) given by the Judicial Officers

and the Annual General Transfers 2022 issued by the High Court

for District Judges, Senior Civil Judges and Civil Judges Junior

Division (Annexures P-4, P-5 & P-6). This Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to call the details from the Registrar General in respect of

the options (Preferences) given by the Judicial Officers. A

comparative reading of the options given by them with their

proposed transfer and posting would make it clear that the

grievance of the petitioner Association is not without merit.

8. The Petitioner Judges Association most humbly submits that

it was not notified to the Judicial Officers that they will not be

transferred and posted in the zones in which they have already

served unless all the zones are exhausted. Had the said fact was

notified to them, they would have given options by keeping that

fact in mind. Hence, it was not permissible for the Honble High

Court to change the Rules (as mentioned in the letter) after

starting the process of Annual General Transfer-2022 and without

notifying the same to the Judicial Officers.

9. The Petitioner Judges Association most humbly submits that

it has felt that it is bounden duty to bring the reality to the notice

of this Hon'ble Court so that it may direct the High Court to take
corrective action and steps are taken to avoid repetition of such

mistake in future. Such treatment to the Judicial Officers― who

are themselves imparting JUSTICE at grass root level― results in

violation of ARTICLES 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. The Petitioner Association most humbly submits that the

High Court cannot justify its action of transferring judicial officers

to long distance of more than 300 kilometres without any reason.

One can understand that a Judicial Officer or few erring Judicial

Officers are transferred to such distant places as punishment but

transferring (huge) large number of Judicial Officers to such

distant places cannot be imagined and same (does) would not serve

any purpose. The Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the

effect of its decision on Judicial Officers, their families besides on

Public Exchequer and on eco-system. Each and everyone of them

would face the burden due to distant transfers.

11. The Petitioner Association most humbly submits that the

Hon'ble High Court has neither considered nor replied the

representation submitted by the Association. The Petitioner

Association has already pointed out that the decision to transfer

Judicial Officers to long distance and to the zone in which they

have not worked do not withstand the test of reasonableness.

Same is arbitrary and would cause great hardship and

inconvenience to the Judicial Officers. Likewise, it will cast extra

burden on the State (Public Exchequer). Ultimately, Public

(litigants) would also suffer since the Judicial Officers who have

been posted at faraway places from their native place, naturally,

they would be required to take long leaves to come to their home

towns. Thus, considered from any angle, decision is unsustainable,

unreasonable and arbitrary.

12. The Petitioner Association most humbly submits that the

High Court should have favourably considered the representation

submitted by the Association on behalf of all the aggrieved and

disappointed Judicial Officers. Transferring Judicial Officers to

distant places without any reason and to the zones in which they

have not served earlier would not serve any purpose. It would

demoralise them and it also would adversely affect their

performance. It would be considered as a stigma for them. Hence,

it is necessary for the High Court to reconsider the decision. Said

decision of distant transfers and beyond choices submitted by

the judicial officers is not in favour of anybody or in the interest

of the institute in any way and any manner. In fact, there is no

propriety to transfer the Judicial Officer beyond the distance

of 300 k.ms. from their native places. Above all nothing would

be gained or achieved by the said decision, much less any

improvement in the system. Hence, it is high time for the Hon'ble

High Court to have a fresh look and to reconsider the decision. A

decision which serves no purpose and causes hardship to the

Judicial Officers and loss to the State should be taken back as soon

as possible (forthwith).

13. The Petitioner Association therefore humbly submits that

time has come for this Hon'ble Court to direct the Hon'ble High

Court to stick to the Letter (Annexure P-1) and to reconsider and

withheld the decision. Flexible Approach of the High Court is the

requirement of time so as to avert miscarriage of justice. This

Hon'ble Court since beginning has adopted the course which

advances the cause of justice. Justice should not be denied to the

Judges who are imparting Justice at grass root level. Technical

considerations have always been kept aside by this Hon'ble Court

while imparting justice and the Judges feel that their cause would

be sympathetically considered by this Hon'ble Court.

14. The Petitioner Association therefore humbly submits that

a Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Samsher

Singh v. State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831 :AIR 1974 SC 2192] has

observed that the members of the subordinate judiciary are not

only under the control of the High Court but are also under the

care and custody of the High Court and that the High Court has

failed to discharge the duty of preserving its control. It was further

pleased to observe that the members of the subordinate judiciary

look up to the High Court not only for discipline but also for

dignity. The Association submits that the decision of the High Court

is a big blow to the dignity of the Judicial Officers and that the

High Court has failed to exercise the control properly since in this

Transfer also not many but considerable officers have been

favoured.

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in

view of the relevant data in respect of transfer of the Judicial

Officers, it would be just and fair that this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to allow this Petition amongst others on the following

grounds: ―

GROUNDS
I. The petitioner Association believes that transfers are not

made in approved perspective and the decision to post most

of the Judicial officers beyond 300 km from their native place

is not at all fair, but could state to be more than a punishment

for no reason.

II. It is worthy to be noted that till date only few not more than

five percent are there in system, who had always

succeeded to remain in A class cities alike Mumbai, Pune,

Nagpur and Thane. But to discipline them entire officers

ought not to have been punished. Some Judicial officers are

working in Metro cities of Mumbai, Thane, Pune, Nashik

alternatively and for period exceeding 6 years.

III. The seniority of judicial officers have not been taken into

account. There are some junior Judicial Officers, who are

given precedence over senior judicial officers while posting

them posted at Metro cities and District Head Quarters,

whereas senior Officers are posted at remote places.

IV. Further many judicial officers have got postings within same

zone. This shows that Transfer Policy is not implemented

strictly and many are favoured. Rather it is being

 implemented and misused conveniently favoring certain

judicial officers and thereby instead of punishing such

officers many others have been punished for the sin of those

who were getting plum postings throughout their judicial

service.

V. The High Court has failed to act as a Guardian and to protect

the dignity of the Judicial Officers. Nowadays, it is the

perception of many officers that few selected Judicial

Officers are getting choice postings of big Cities like Mumbai,

Thane, Pune etc. and even remain posted in those big cities

for much longer time than regular period of three years and

they are transferred from one big city to another big city. This

special treatment to few Judicial Officers might be cause of

concern for the rest of Judicial Officers who also want to serve

in big cities. Rules shall be applied equally to all. It is trite

that equals cannot be treated unequally and unequal cannot

be treated equally. Confidence of the Judicial Officers will be

shaken and they will be demoralised if the High Court

discriminates between them. It is not good for the institution

if they lose faith for one or the other reason. Thus, the action

of the High Court is discriminatory and in violation of Article

 14 of the Constitution of India. It cannot treat two similarly

placed Judicial Officers differently by giving different

treatment to them who are governed by the same Rules.

Rather, it should have uniformly applied the Rules to all. Thus,

the actions of the High Court cannot be justified.

VI. After the declaration of Transfers the petitioner Association

has conducted a sample survey in Google Excel Sheet. The

Google Survey Sheet contains the information of about 466

judicial officers who have been transferred in AGT 2022. In

the survey it is found that, nearly 85% judicial officers have

not been transferred to their preferred first six choice

postings. Nearly 92% judicial officers are either disappointed

or not happy with their proposed transfers. Nearly 50% judicial

officers have been posted at more than 500 kms distance form

their native place. About 20% judicial officers shave been

posted at the distance between 400- 500 kms and 15% judicial

officers shave been posted at the distance between 400- 500

kms. During the survey more than 90% judicial officers from

the total of 466 officers have opined that, they would suffer

many family problems and hardships due to their proposed

transfer. Resultantly, their performance would not be at the

 optimum level and they would not be able to work freely

from all kinds of mental barriers.

VII. There cannot be a dispute that the work of a judge involves

more of Mental activity than the physical. Therefore, Mental

and Psychological health of the Judicial Officer is of much

importance for his overall work efficiency. If a judge from

Kolhapur or Sangli is posted at far away station like Gondia

or Nagpur which is at the distance of about 900 Km, he

cannot reach his home town. He has to travel more than 24

hrs journey. In case of emergency, he cannot reach his home

to help his beloved Family Members. There are no direct

trains or buses available from rural and remote judicial

stations. He cannot visit his Home Town without taking

leaves of at least a week. This ultimately affect his work

efficiency and output.

VIII. All the judicial officers have the legitimate expectation that

he would be allowed to work in a stress free environment at

the convenient Place of posting, although he cannot be

posted in his home District in the interest of impartiality and

Judicial Independence.
IX. In the Annual General Transfers–2022 almost 50% judicial

officers have been posted at the distance of more than 500

Kms, making it quite difficult and inconvenient for them to

commute to their Hometowns. Most of the judicial officers

from Western Maharashtra have been transferred to Vidarbha

region and officers from Vidarbha region have been

inconveniently posted in Western Maharashtra region. As per

the letter of Hon’ble High Court dated 31/12/2021 every

judicial transfer due for transfer was asked to give two options

from each regional zone except the Zone in which he is

working (Total 10 options). However, very few judicial

officers have got transferred to their preferred choice posting

options submitted by them. Almost 70 % judicial officers have

been transferred to the last 2-3 options submitted by them

disregarding their first six- seven preferred options.

X. Additionally, from the transfer memo it is found that many

women judicial officers are also transferred to inconvenient

and remote judicial stations situated at the distance of more

than 500 kms from their native places. The High Court has

failed to imagine and consider the result of its decision to

 transfer Judicial Officers to distant places without any

reason and to the zones in which they have not served

earlier. Same is arbitrary and thus sufficient to quash the

decision.

XI. The High Court cannot justify its action of transferring judicial

officers to long distance of more than 300 kilometres without

any reason. One can understand that a Judicial Officer or few

erring Judicial Officers are transferred to such distant places

as punishment but transferring huge number of Judicial

Officers to such distant places cannot be imagined. The High

Court should have considered the effect of its decision on

Judicial Officers, their families, Public Exchequer, litigants

and on eco-system. Most of the Judicial Officers have stated

that they are disappointed. Each and everyone of them would

face the burden and inconvenience.

XII. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of

unjust transfer of a Judicial Officer from Madhya Pradesh in

the case of X... Petitioner(s) Versus Registrar General, High

Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another, reported in 2022

SCC Online SC 171 has held that, doctrine of legitimate

 expectation also applies in case of Transfer of Judicial

officers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed

that;

“No doubt, that a Judicial Officer while discharging

his/her duties, is expected to be independent,
fearless, impassionate and non−impulsive. But a
Judicial Officer is also a human being. A Judicial
Officer is also a parent. He/she could be a father or a
mother.”

XIII. The inconvenient transfer might, in the appropriate context,

be a validation of punishment for a indolent or cantankerous

judicial officer as opposed to relatively mechanically

construed posting or as an instrument to avoid the

furthermore problems to the system from someone perceived

as unsuitable at good places of postings. However, a distant

posting to good judicial officer giving good disposal without

any complaints is a significant departure from the general

norm as recognized by the system.

XIV. Furthermore, a distant posting is also entailing an element

of stigma for those so posted faraway, and therefore there is

a fundamental requirement to ensure that such a decision of

transfers originates in, is deliberated upon in, and is

 operationalized in, a fair, considered and transparent

manner.

XV. The crux of the matter is that in Maharashtra there is no

comprehensive and reasonable Transfer Policy in existence,

which is published and made known to the officers from the

State of Maharashtra. Every year the Registry issues formal

letters seeking options from all Judicial officers who are due

for transfer. In India many High Courts like Madhya Pradesh,

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar- Patna, Rajasthan, Orissa-Guwahati,

Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Tripura,

Chhattisgarh and others have Comprehensive and reasonable

Transfer Policies in writing. In all these States transfers are

being affected as per clear and comprehensive policies. In

many States clear timelines or period have been fixed for

calling and submission of preferred options, Declaration of

Transfers, Submission of Representation against the

inconvenient transfers, its consideration and communication

of the decisions taken thereon. However, in Maharashtra no

such specific timelines or period have been fixed.

XVI. In many States, serious medical illness of judicial officer or

his family members is being considered as valid ground of

Retention or convenient Transfer on Compassionate ground.

Moreover, ongoing Education of children in Last year of

Degree, University or other Statutory Board Examinations is

also considered as ground for Retention or Convenient

Transfer. But in Maharashtra there are no such guidelines in

writing. In Maharashtra education of children in 9th, 10th, 11th

and 12th is only considered as valid ground of retention.

XVII. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Shri

Dipankar Datta (then Justice of Calcutta High Court) while

submitting the report of SCMS Committee to Hon’ble Supreme

Court on Human Resource Development Strategy in Judiciary

has recommended that,

“In quite a few High Courts, written transfer

policies are conspicuous by its absence. For
ensuring a fair and transparent process,
there ought to be a written transfer policy
rather than unwritten norms and guidelines
providing for transfers after three years and
two years from comfort zones and difficult
zones, as the case may be. Considering that
the tenure of a judicial officer who is not
elevated to the High Court as a Judge would
ordinarily be between thirty and thirty five
years, a uniform policy could be evolved
 identifying various zones (very difficult,
difficult, not so difficult, comfort) and
posting officers thereat taking into
consideration their choice, if any, so as to
ensure optimum utilization of their services.

………Since the judiciary is the harbinger of

justice, the judicial officers would feel
encouraged if there is complete cessation of
penal transfer order and transfers as far as
practicable in accordance with the written
policy.”

XVIII. The committee in its report on page no 8 in Chapter

IV of the report has further observed that,
It is of absolute necessity that the mental peace of
the judges, who are manning the courts subordinate
to the High Courts, is ensured to the fullest extent
possible. It is common experience that proper judging
is not possible if a judge, while sitting on the chair of
a judge, is lacking in peace of mind. His performance
is closely relatable to the mindset prevailing at the
time of discharge of judicial duty. Affectation of
performance is bound to occur for a brooding judge.
Concerns of Judicial Officers affecting their
performance often arise out of (i) alleged unfair
transfer and postings (Delhi, because of geographical
reasons, being an exception), (ii) grievances relating
 to ACRs, and (iii) non disposal of representations in
respect of either (i) or (ii) or both.

XIX. As per the information available to the Petitioner, that in

Maharashtra there is no comprehensive and reasonable

Transfer Policy in existence since last many years. The

Bombay High has never displayed and published

comprehensive Transfer Policy on its website. The absence

of comprehensive and reasonable Transfer Policy has

resulted into arbitrary and unjust exercise of power by the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

XX. This Hon’ble has appointed a full-fledged Second National

Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble

Justice Shri P V Reddi vide order dated 09/05/2017 in WP (C)

643/2015 with very wide range of terms of reference. One of

the terms of reference was regarding ‘Conditions of service

of Judicial Officers in the states/UT's and also to examine

the work methods and work environment’. The Pay

Commission has been appointed with the very object of

bringing uniformity in the service conditions of judicial

officers working in subordinate judiciary across the country.

 The periodical transfer of judicial officer is one of the

important service conditions. Hence, the petitioner

Association had requested the SNJPC to frame Model Rules/

Transfer Policy regarding transfer of judicial officers with

scope for requisite flexibility in term of geographical and

other conditions of every State. The petitioner association

had requested SNJPC to frame the Uniform Model Transfer

Rules/Transfer Policy, which can be adopted by all the High

Courts with suitable modifications. However, recently the

SNJPC while submitting its Part-IV report regarding “Work

Methods and Work Environment” in February 2022 has not

considered the request regarding need for framing Model

Uniform and Comprehensive Transfer Policy or Rules for all

the States.

XXI. The transfer memo contains the clause that the

representations against the order of transfer submitted by

the Judicial Officers, will be entertained only after they

take of their new postings. However, till this year the High

Court has followed the practice to consider such

representations before issuing detailed Notification of the

Postings. The same appears to be convenient and

 reasonable. There is no propriety to ask the judicial

officer first take the charge of his new posting, which is

at the distance of more than 500 Kms by spending lakhs of

Rupees and thereafter ask him to join at new posting after

considering the representation. It would give premium to

unnecessarily waste time and money of the Judicial

Officer.

XXII. It is well known that the academic year commences in the

month of June. Considering this aspect, asking the judicial

officers to first join at the new station and then consider

his representation would not be in the interest of the kids

of the Judicial Officer. Many times representations made

by judicial officers are not decided for months and some-

times for years together.

XXIII. If the data regarding the recruitment of judicial officers from

each district and region vis a vis the working strength of

judicial officers in each district and region, is taken into

consideration, then it would be clear that there is no need

to transfer any judicial officer at far distance from his Native

Place or Home District. The comprehensive and reasonable

 Transfer Policies as implemented in other states can easily

be implemented in Maharashtra without causing great

hardship and inconvenience to the judicial officers.

XXIV. It is trite that all the stake holders are consulted before

taking a policy decision. Therefore, it was expected from the

High Court to take the Association in confidence and consult,

before giving go bye to the settled practice in respect of

transfers of the Judicial Officers. Leave apart consultation,

the Honble High Court has not felt it necessary to notify and

inform the Judicial Officers that such decision has been

taken. Procedure adopted by the Hon'ble High Court is wholly

unjust and arbitrary and thus it violates the provisions of

Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India.

XXV. The judicial officers suffering from serious medical

problems and illnesses are transferred to inconvenient

places where adequate medical facilities are not

available. Some judicial officers have cancer patients in

their family. Their requests for convenient transfers should

have been considered with indulgent eyes on humanitarian

ground. However, their requests have been totally ignored.

 Some lady judicial officers having infant baby child are

transferred to inconvenient and remote stations where

they would not get any family support.

XXVI. Many lady judicial officers would be forced to live separately

from their family as their husband are working in other

cities. The decision of the High Court in relation to the

transfer of the Judicial Officers is irrational and

unreasonable. Such decision cannot be allowed to remain in

force even for a day and hence it is necessary to quash the

same.

XXVII. Serious problem all of the judicial officers have is that of

old and/or ill parents, who reside in their hometown. Some of

such Judicial Officers have been transferred beyond

Kilometres from their hometown. So, it will be difficult for

them to visit their hometown in case of any medical

emergency of their parents or even in case of death. We have

many instances when the last funeral rites on dead parents of

the Judicial Officers would not be attended or even the last

rites were delayed so much that same were required to be

performed at late hours of night.

XXVIII. Some Judicial Officers have children of marriageable age

and sending them faraway unless they wish would be

affecting their performance at least to some extent. We even

have many judicial officers, whose children have crossed the

limits of marriageable age creating serious problem to the

family.

XXIX. The Article 11 of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to which India is a

signatory, provides that a woman should be able to work and

discharge family duties at the same time. The lady Judicial

officer's transfer are at such places, where she could not have

been able to simultaneously discharge her duties as a Judicial

Officer and her duties towards the family. As such, the

transfer orders are in violation of Article 11 of CEDAW.

(SEE- In WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1137 OF 2018

titled...Mrs X VERSUS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER )-

XXX. Although, Hon’ble High Courts have been conferred with

power of control over subordinate District judiciary vide

Article 235 of the Indian Constitution, but that power is not

absolute. Every power needs to be exercised for the public

good. Our Constitution contemplates the State, to be directed

 towards welfare of the people at large, which is only

possible when the people are contented by the treatment

they received from the State. Services, are an integral part of

the system and are instrumental in making the administrative

machinery of the State move. The directive principles of State

Policy oblige the State to make available circumstances and

atmosphere for the citizens to physically, mentally, socially

and economically grow to their fullest potential and in-turn

contribute towards the over all development of the nation.

This concept is reflected from a bare reading of Article 38 (1)

and 39 clause (e) and (f) of the Constitution of India which are

the directive principles of State Policy. Article 42 of the

Constitution of India states that, State shall make provision

for securing just and human conditions of work.

XXXI. The Hon’ble High Court while exercising its functions on the

administrative side, would also be a State within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The State

and all its instrumentalists have to conform to Article 14 of

the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant

facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A

public authority possesses powers only to use them for public

 good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a

procedure which is 'fair play in action'. Due observance of

this obligation as a part of good administration raises a

reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be

treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its

instrumentalists, with this element forming a necessary

component of the decision making process in all State

actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a

State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give

due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of

the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that

unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an

abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides

of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would

be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule

of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the

exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for

control of its exercise by judicial review.

XXXII. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen,

in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct

enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due

 weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is

how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate

expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness,

a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate

expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration

in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation

of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is

a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question

arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's

perception but in larger public interest wherein other more

important considerations may outweigh what would

otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the

claimant. A bonafide decision of the public authority reached

in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-

arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of

legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and

operates in our legal system in this manner and to this

extent.

XXXIII. For a public servant to strive towards excellence, it is of

utmost importance that fair and equitable opportunities are

made available by the State. One of the means to achieve

 this goal of providing equitable opportunities by the State

is to make available healthy and stress-free working

environment for a public servant. A stress-free working

environment is inter alia possible when the State,

functioning as an employer, while effecting transfers takes

into account not only the administrative exigencies/public

interest but also the genuine personal problems of the public

servant liable to be transferred. A balance has to be struck

by the employer which is though difficult but not impossible

to achieve. Every government in it's capacity as an employer

owes it to its employees. If this balance between the

administrative exigency and personal inconvenience is kept

in mind before every event of transfer, the cause of heart

burning among public servants under transfer would reduce

to the minimum thereby creating a healthy and congenial

atmosphere between the employer and employees which in

turn contributes greatly to the over all development of the

particular institution and as well as the nation.

XXXIV. In such circumstances, every judicial officer certainly have

legitimate expectation of transfer within reasonable distance

 and convenience so that he too can enjoy the family life and

working environment free from stress. However, the High

Court while effecting the Annual General Transfers of 2022

has completely ignored the principle of legitimate

expectation. Moreover, the transfers are not made in the

public interest, as these mass scale inconvenient transfers are

certainly going to have adverse impact on overall work

efficiency of judicial officers. They would ultimately affect

the administration of justice in State of Maharashtra.

Therefore, unjust and unreasonable the Annual General

Transfers declared by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court are

arbitrary and malafide. Hence, in light of all aforesaid grounds

and facts, the applicant/petitioner is constrained to file

present writ petition challenging the unjust and inconvenient

transfers declared by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

XXXV. It has been stated in the letter (Annexure P-1) by the

High Court that the Judicial Officers shall give two stations of

their choice from each zone as per their priority excluding the

zone of present posting and that if required number of

stations are not given by them, it will be treated that they are

willing to be posted anywhere in the State [of Maharashtra].

 It further states that if the Judicial Officers get posting of

any place of their choice, no representation for change of

posting shall be entertained and that they are expected to

observe self-restraint while making representation, if choice

posting is given to them. Much is stated impliedly in these

clauses of the letter which may not be discussed or dilated

here. Implied conditions are sufficient to imply and infer that

the decision of the High Court is contrary to its own letter and

thus not sustainable and hence needs to be quashed.

XXXVI. The Petitioner association, before declaration of Annual

General Transfers had submitted the representation to

Hon’ble Bombay High Court requesting it to consider the

transfer options submitted by judicial officer with Human

approach and to adopt comprehensive Transfer. After

declaration of the Annual general Transfers on 06/04/2022,

the petitioner Association on behalf all the aggrieved judicial

officers has submitted collective representation on

12/04/2022. Many judicial officers have also submitted their

personal representations against the inconvenient transfers.

However, till date no any response is received from the side

of High Court administration. The High Court should have

 sympathetically considered the representation and

withdrawn the new policy which is unjust and causing great

hardship to the Judicial Officers. The High Court has failed to

reconsider its decision even after submission of the

representation by the Association. Hence, the petitioner

association in the representative capacity is constrained to

file the present Writ Petition on behalf of all the aggrieved

judicial officers.

XXXVII. This Hon'ble in Court Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022

titled SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors.Versus Union of India and

Ors. decided on 10.03.2022 has observed and held thus in

paragraph No.50 of the judgment ―

50. The State’s interference in the rights of privacy,

dignity, and family life of persons must be
proportional. This Court in Akshay N. Patel v. Reserve
Bank of India 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1180, held that the
framing of policy must meet an integrated
proportionality analysis which answers whether the
measure is:
(i) in furtherance of a legitimate aim;
(ii) suitable for achieving the aim;
(iii) necessary for achieving the aim; and
(iv) adequately balanced with the rights of the individual.
XXXVIII. There was no aim before the High Court when the

decision to transfer majority of judicial officers at

inconvenient posting was taken and hence the question of its

suitability for achieving the aim does not arise. Said decision

is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Nothing positive

can be achieved by implementing it. Judicial Officers would

face hardship if it is implemented. Decision is such that it is

quite impossible to balance it with the rights of the Judicial

Officers. Hence, it is necessary to quash the same.

XXXIX. This Hon'ble Court in the case of Naushad (Supra) has

further ruled that―
48. ...... The manner in which a special provision
should be adopted by the State is a policy choice which
has to be exercised after balancing out constitutional
values and the needs of the administration. But there
can be no manner of doubt that the State, both in its
role as a model employer as well as an institution
which is subject to constitutional norms, must bear in
mind the fundamental right to substantive equality
when it crafts the policy even for its own employees.
51. ..... The State while formulating a policy for its
own employees has to give due consideration to the
importance of protecting family life as an element of
the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy.
How a particular policy should be modulated to take
 into account the necessities of maintaining family
life may be left at the threshold to be determined
by the State. In crafting its policy however the State
cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic
constitutional values, including the preservation of
family life which is an incident of Article 21.
53. In considering whether any modification of
the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the
need for a proportional relationship between the
objects of the policy and the means which are adopted
to implement it. The policy above all has to fulfill the
test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of
balancing the values which underlie a decision making
process informed by constitutional values. Hence
while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of
the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the
respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate
posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and
compassionate grounds. Such an exercise has to be left
within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the
process that constitutional values which underlie
Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the
Constitution are duly protected. The appeals shall be
disposed of in the above terms.

XL. There is every reason to state that the High Court has failed

to ensure that the Constitutional values enshrined in Articles

14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly

 protected so far as the plight of the subordinate judicial

officers are concerned.

XLI. The transfer order has been issued in utter disregard to the

contents of the letter dated 31.12.2021 issued by the

Registrar General, Bombay High Court. Same is evident from

a bare reading of the options (preferences) given by the

Judicial Officers and the Annual General Transfers 2022

issued by the High Court for District Judges, Senior Civil

Judges and Civil Judges Junior Division (Annexures P-4, P-5

& P-6)). This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call the details

from the Registrar General in respect of the options

(Preferences) given by the Judicial Officers. A comparative

reading of the options given by them with their proposed

transfer and posting would make it clear that the grievance

of the petitioner Association is not without merit.

XLII. It was not notified to the Judicial Officers that they will not

be transferred and posted in the zones in which they have

already served unless all the zones are exhausted. Had the

said fact is notified to them, they would have given options

by keeping that in mind. Hence, it was not permissible for

 the High Court to change the Rules (as mentioned in the

letter) after starting the process of Annual General

Transfer-2022 and without notifying the same to the Judicial

Officers.

16. That the petitioner Association respectfully submits

that the Writ Petition is maintainable in view of the facts noted

above and the grounds mentioned in the petition.

17. That the petitioner has not filed similar petition in this

Hon'ble Court or in any High Court or in any other Court in India.

18. That the petitioner is not having any grievance against

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has been impleaded in view of

the fact that the Judicial Officers are working in the State of

Maharashtra and that it has to bear the travelling allowances etc.

of the transferred judges.

19. Petitioner Association has approached this Hon’ble

Court without delay for the redressal of its grievances pertaining

to the infringement of Fundamental Rights of Judicial Officers as

enshrined in Articles 21 & 14 of the Constitution of India.

 PRAYER

It is therefore, in the interest of justice and in the facts

and circumstances of the case, most humbly and respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) Call the details from the Registrar General of the Bombay

High Court in respect of the options (Preferences) given by

the Judicial Officers.

(ii) Allow the Petition and to direct Respondent No.1 not to give

effect to the Annual General Transfers 2022 of the District

Judges; Senior Civil Judges and Civil Judges Junior Division

in the State of Maharashtra.

(iii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of

Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider and decide

the representations of all aggrieved judicial officers with

human approach, before the courts opens after vacation on

06/06/2022.

(iv) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature

of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to formulate fair,

comprehensive and reasonable Transfer Policy for the

 Judicial Officers in the State of Maharashtra in

consultation with all the stakeholders.

(v) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature

of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the

representations submitted by the Association as well as

individual aggrieved judicial officers and to post the Judicial

Officers within a radius of 300 kilometres from their native

places by giving preference to their options.

(vi) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature

of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 not to give special

treatment to some Judicial Officers and to treat all the

Judicial Officers equally and without discrimination;

(vii) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court

deems fit and appropriate in the interest of justice.

DRAWN BY & FILED BY:

DRAWN ON: [DILIP ANNASAHEB TAUR]

FILED ON: Advocate for the Petitioner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORIGINAL CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2022

(A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES
ASSOCIATION …PETITIONER

VERSUS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF

TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS
ABOVE NAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner is filing the accompanying Writ

Petition (Civil) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the

issuance of the appropriate writs/directions to respondent No.1 to

withheld the Annual General Transfers 2022; to formulate

Transfer Policy and to transfer the Judicial Officers working in the

State of Maharashtra within a radius of 300 kilometres from their

places.
2. That the petitioner is having a very good prima facie case

and the petitioner is most likely to succeed on the grounds

mentioned therein. Cause being prosecuted by it in the present

Writ petition is not adversarial and the same is for the benefit of

the Judicial Officers.

3. That the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, if the

interim relief, as sought for, is not granted.

4. Petitioner humbly submits that the rights of any person will

not be prejudiced, if the interim relief, as prayed for, is granted.

5. Applicant/Petitioner states that the present Application is

being filed bona fide and in the interests of justice.

6. In the above-mentioned circumstances, Applicant/

Petitioner humbly submits that this application for grant of Interim

Relief may kindly be considered liberally.

7. Petitioner has immediately approached this Hon’ble Court.

Hence, there is no delay or laches on the part of the petitioner to

approach this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of its grievances

pertaining to the infringement of Fundamental Rights.

 PRAYER

It is therefore, in the interest of justice and in the facts

and circumstances of the case, most humbly and respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (ii), (iii)

and (iv) of the Petition subject to its final; and

(ii) Pass any other order or orders which this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and in

the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY.

DRAWN BY & FILED BY:

DRAWN ON: [DILIP ANNASAHEB TAUR]

FILED ON: Advocate for the Petitioner