1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8040 of 2009 Date of decision:2.12.2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH H PATIL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/wp8040-09 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8040 OF 2009 1) Deepak s/o Digambarrao Pujari, Age 41 years, Occ. service, (As Chief Officer, Jalna Municipal Council, Jalna), r/o Municipal quarters, Near Moti Baugh Naka Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. The Collector, Jalna District, Jalna. 3. Mr. P.M.Masalekar, Chief Officer, Kankavali Municipal Council, Tq. Kankavali, Dist. Sindhudurg. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Shri S.P.Shah, Adv., for petitioner. Shri R.P.Phatake, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent State. Shri V.D.Sapkal, Adv., for respondent no.3. ... 3 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 2.12.2009 *** JUDGMENT: (Per K.U.Chandiwal, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner joined as a Chief Officer of the Nagar Parishad, Jalna, on 7.7.2008 and his grievance is that even though he has hardly completed a period of one year and though he was not due or liable for being transferred out of his present posting, having not completed the statutory tenure of three years as specifically prescribed in Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short, "Maharashtra Transfer Act"), he is transferred to Partur, dist.Jalna. 3. The transfer order dt.31.7.2009, transferring as many as 72 Chief Officers throughout the State of Maharashtra, includes name of present petitioner at Sr.No.56, having been transferred from Jalna to Partur Nagar Palika, dist. Jalna, in place of Smt.Ogale, who 4 has, in turn, been transferred as Chief Officer, Matheran Hill station, district Raigad. In place of petitioner, respondent no.3, Mr.P.M.Masalekar is transferred from Nagar Palika, Kankavali, to Jalna. 4. Learned Senior counsel contend that the transfer was not required to be effected. There is no blot as against the petitioner in his service. Learned Senior Counsel took recourse to provisions of Section 4,sub clauses (i) and (ii) of the Maharashtra Transfer Act. The learned Senior Counsel also contend that even Section 5 of the said Maharashtra Transfer Act would not be applicable as there is no special case to this effect. 5. We have perused the order of transfer dt.31st July, 2009, which is general in its character and nature, made effective for transfer of 72 Chief Officers in the State. Most of the transfers are on administrative ground and 17 such transfers are on request. The transfer of petitioner from Jalna to Partur is in place of Smt.Ogale, who has been sent to Matheran in place of Shri Vijaykumar Mhasal who, in turn, is transferred to Ulhasnagar, dist. Thane. 6. We quite see that the transfer is not an unilateral effect to the extent of petitioner 5 alone but it is by way of general exercise. The statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Transfer Act will not inhibit the powers of the authorities to effect general transfers, as the provisions are regulatory and not prohibitory in their application. The provisions of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Transfer Act are not in conflict with the rights of competent authority to effect transfer. 7. We do not see any colourable exercise of discretion by the authorities, coloured with any mala fides, arbitrary approach or misuse of powers. The transfer, as stated earlier, being regular in nature at mass level, it also cannot be said that it was made specifically to accommodate somebody and the petitioner is made a scapegoat for the same. 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not put to any hardship as the new place is not far away from Jalna. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H.PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE agp/wp8040-09