Bombay High Court Quashes “Inexplicable” Posting Swap: Finds Maharashtra Govt's RTO Reassignment “Arbitrary” and “Without Recorded Reasons”
Safiya Malik
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad set aside a decision of the Maharashtra government concerning the promotional postings of two Regional Transport Officers (RTOs). A Division Bench comprising Justice S. G. Mehare and Justice Sandipkumar C. More found that the modification of an earlier Government Resolution (GR) was arbitrary and lacked recorded reasoning. The decision upheld the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s (MAT) order, which had invalidated the revised GR dated June 13, 2024, that swapped the postings of Archana Shailendra Gaikwad and Shyam Shivajirao Lohi.
Archana Gaikwad and Shyam Lohi were among 23 Deputy RTOs promoted to RTO Group-A under a Government Resolution dated March 16, 2024. According to this GR, Gaikwad was assigned to Chandrapur, and Lohi was posted to Pune.
Gaikwad, who had submitted several representations since 2020 requesting a posting to Pune or Pimpri-Chinchwad due to her husband’s medical condition and her mother’s health, was nonetheless assigned to Chandrapur in the March resolution. The Competent Authority, having considered these representations, still chose to place her at Chandrapur. The court noted, "an inference can safely be drawn that even after her representations till 28/02/2024, the Competent Authority of State posted her at Chandrapur."
Due to the Model Code of Conduct in place for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the implementation of the March 16 resolution was delayed. Once the code was lifted, on June 6, 2024, the officers under the GR were relieved from their existing postings and prepared to assume their new positions. However, a subsequent Government Resolution issued on June 13, 2024, altered the earlier order. This modification reassigned Gaikwad to Pune and posted Lohi to Chandrapur.
Lohi challenged the June 13 resolution before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He contended that the change in postings lacked transparency, procedural basis, and any recorded justification. Lohi further submitted that he was not granted an opportunity to be heard and that the process appeared irregular.
The Tribunal accepted his challenge and set aside the June 13 resolution, directing the authorities to implement the original March 16 resolution. Both the Maharashtra government and Gaikwad challenged this Tribunal ruling before the Bombay High Court.
Senior counsel for Gaikwad argued that the modification was based on genuine humanitarian concerns, as Gaikwad’s husband and mother were suffering from illnesses, and the Competent Authority acted within its powers to adjust postings based on such representations. He further submitted that under the Government Resolution dated January 31, 2014, clause 3.7 vested the Competent Authority with the final say on promotional postings, and no statutory procedure required further formalities such as a Civil Service Board recommendation.
The government also submitted that no binding statutory rule was breached and that the Competent Authority had the discretion to modify postings in view of representations.
Counsel for Lohi, however, submitted that the original GR dated March 16, 2024, had already considered Gaikwad’s repeated applications and still assigned her to Chandrapur. He pointed out that after officers were relieved on June 6, 2024, only the postings of Gaikwad and Lohi were changed within a span of six to seven days without offering any recorded reasoning.
Lohi’s counsel referred to the absence of any official explanation in the June 13 resolution. The court recorded, "on bare perusal of the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 it is clearly evident that no reason is mentioned for such modification therein."
The High Court found the sequence of events irregular, especially since the March 16 resolution had considered Gaikwad’s personal circumstances but still chose Chandrapur as her posting. The court noted the sudden change in postings shortly after the lifting of the election code and the implementation of the original postings.
The bench noted that most of the other officers who were promoted alongside Gaikwad and Lohi had already joined their assigned posts following the March 16 resolution, and the decision to interchange only these two officers’ postings lacked clarity.
The court remarked, "it is inexplicable on the part of the Competent Authority of State as to why the places of postings of the petitioner – Archana and the respondent – Shyam Lohi were interchanged under the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 within only six or seven days."
Lohi had also sought reasons for the modification through a Right to Information (RTI) application, but no documents were furnished by the government. The bench noted that the non-production of documents when called for by the Tribunal allowed for an adverse inference against the State.
Further, the court stated, "the Competent Authority of the State has miserably failed to assign any reason as to why they caused modification of the Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 by interchanging the places of postings of the petitioner – Archana and the respondent – Shyam Lohi by issuing another Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024."
The court applied the standard of arbitrariness established by the Supreme Court in cases such as Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel. It observed that even when authorities have discretion over administrative matters, the absence of recorded reasons and deviation from prior practice render the decision vulnerable to judicial review.
The court added that even if there was no codified statutory procedure requiring a Civil Service Board recommendation, arbitrariness alone was sufficient grounds for intervention.
The bench remarked, "when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to intervene."
The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision and found no procedural or legal infirmity in the MAT’s order. The bench dismissed both writ petitions and upheld the Tribunal’s directive to implement the original March 16, 2024, resolution. This reinstated Lohi’s posting to Pune and Gaikwad’s posting to Chandrapur.
The court recorded, "we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal."
After the judgment was delivered, Gaikwad’s counsel sought a stay on its implementation. The court took into account that Gaikwad had already assumed charge in Pune on June 14, 2024, and that the Tribunal had previously granted a stay. The bench extended this stay for four weeks to allow Gaikwad to seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court.
The order concluded with, "the stay granted by the learned Tribunal, is extended for further period of four weeks. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: R. N. Dhorde (Senior Counsel), P. S. Dighe, Ajay S. Deshpande, Abhay D. Ostwal
For the Respondent: Rajendra Deshmukh (Senior Counsel), Kunal Kale, Avinash Deshmukh
For the State of Maharashtra: A. S. Shinde (Additional Government Pleader)
Case Title: Smt. Archana w/o Shailendra Gaikwad v. Shri Shyam Shivajirao Lohi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:7813-DB
Case Numbers: Writ Petition Nos. 8511 and 9474 of 2024
Bench: Justice S. G. Mehare and Justice Sandipkumar C. More
[Read/Download order]
