1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7650 of 2010 Smt. Manisha s/o. Kailash Mundankar petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and othes. Respondents Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.B. Patil, AGP for the respondent No.1. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.4 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7697 OF 2010 Smt. Asha d/o. Ramrao Chavan Petitoner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondent. Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7658 OF 2010 Smt. Archana d/o. Ramrao Shisode Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. 2 Respondents. Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1] The petitioners by way of present petitions have challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for granting stay to their transfers. 2] The learned Tribunal has given sound and cogent reasons while dismissing the original application. It has been found that though the petitioners have completed their tenure in November, 2009, in order not to destabilize them in mid term, they were continued till May, 2010. In so far as the contentions regarding malafides are concerned, the same also have not found favour with the learned Tribunal. 3] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petitions stand rejected. Needless to mention that the dismissal of the present petitions, would not come in the way of the respondent authorities in considering the representation made by the petitioners. Since the petitioners are ladies, we expect the authorities to consider their applications sympathetically. [A.A. SAYED,J] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp