1 WP NO.4686-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4686 OF 2011 Pandurang s/o Ramrao Lahane, Age 46 years, Occ. Service, Sectional Engineer, Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad R/o Auditor's Colony, Aurangabad. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, And Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad through its Chief Officer. 3. Panchayat Samiti Aurangabad through its Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent State. Mr. U.B.Bondar, Adv., for respondent nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE:July 6th, 2011 ... 2 WP NO.4686-11 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned his transfer order dated 20th June, 2011 (Exh.D to the writ petition) issued by Respondent No.2. 3. Respondent No.2 has transferred the petitioner from Sub Division, Aurangabad, to Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur. 4. Mr. V.D.Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to the Government Resolution dt.6th May, 2010, and the Schedule appended thereto and submitted that respondent no.2 has effected petitioner's transfer without considering the guidelines laid down by the Government in the said Resolution. He submitted that transfer orders of the employees, such as the petitioner, as provided for in the Government Resolution, ought to be effected before 30th May and, that too, on the basis of seniority. He then submitted that even for transfers in an exceptional circumstances, permission of the Divisional Commissioner is necessary, which was not obtained in the present case by the Chief Executive Officer, before effecting the impugned transfer. 5. We have perused the Government 3 WP NO.4686-11 Resolution and so also the guidelines laid down by the Government for effecting transfers of Class III and Class IV employees of Zilla Parishads. In our opinion, the Government Resolution dt.6th May, 2010, is of no avail to the petitioner, in view of the fact that, admittedly, the petitioner's transfer is a special transfer and not a part of general transfer. The impugned transfer order cannot be faulted since it was issued in special circumstances, as mentioned in the order itself. Moreover, learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submitted across the Bar that at Gangapur, when the petitioner has been transferred, four Sectional Engineers were working and, they are all under suspension. In other words, as of today, there is no Sectional Engineer at Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur. This factual position has not been disputed by the petitioner. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that permission of the Divisional Commissioner ought to have been obtained before effecting such transfer also, in our opinion, is devoid of any merits. We have perused the relevant guideline relied upon by the petitioner in support of this contention. As per the guideline, such permission is required only if it is premature transfer. Admittedly, the petitioner's transfer is effected after three years which, admittedly, cannot be termed as premature transfer. 4 WP NO.4686-11 In the circumstances, we find no force in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) ... (agp:4686-11wp)