1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 357/2011. Dr. Manisha Totaram Patil -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 24, 2011. Heard finally by consent of Shri S. Borkar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri N.N. Motghare, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Perused order dated 18.10.2008, by which the petitioner was appointed for a period of 11 months or till a candidate selected by the Service Selection Board reports. It further appears that she was given posting accordingly by order dated 15.11.2008. On 2 02.03.2009 petitioner was sent back to the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagpur Region, Nagpur and perusal of order dated 28.01.2010 reveals that for remaining period i.e., from 01.02.2010 to 31.08.2010 she was given posting again with Zilla Parishad, Bhandara depending upon the availability of vacant post. The impugned order dated 03.03.2010 needs to be viewed in this background. This order clearly mentions above impugned order dated 28.01.2010 and then points out that post for Scheduled Caste incumbent is not available and hence, petitioner has been transferred to Chandrapur by order dated 22.04.2010. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has correctly appreciated this position. It is apparent that the petitioner was appointed only for a period of 11 months or till duly selected candidate reports, by office of respondent no.2 as a Scheduled Caste category candidate. Accordingly, she is being posted at a place where that post is available for her. We do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the said approach. 3 Shri Borkar, learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has a breast feeding child. He also states that in the meanwhile some post have become vacant in Bhandara Zilla Parishad only. We permit petitioner leave to make representation to respondent no.2, after she reports at Chandrapur. Respondent no.2 shall consider the facts and situation and if possible, try to accommodate the petitioner at Bhandara. With these observations, petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd