1 wp2904.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2904 OF 2011 KJ Shri Saswade Ajitkumar Rajabhau )..Petitioner Vs. Shri Sandipan Balasaheb Mate )..Respondent ---- Mr.Sanjeev Kadam @ P.H.Gaikwad for the petitioner. Mr.C.T.Chandratre for respondent no.1. Mr.Vijay Patil Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.2 & 3. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 21/4/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 In terms of general transfer order dated 6.8.2010, the petitioner before us and the respondent no.1 came to be transferred at Worli, Mumbai and Palghar respectively. Thus, 17 probation officers were transferred and respondent no.1 was one of them. The petitioner however, made representation using the good offices of the sitting MLA for changing the general transfer order so as to post the petitioner at Palghar. The Government 2 wp2904.11.sxw machinery was set in motion on the basis of the letter issued by Rajendra Gavit MLA of Palghar dated 10.8.2010. The noting made on the said letter reveals that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sitting MLA the office of the Chief Minister accepted the said recommendation and which culminated with the corrigendum dated 1.9.2010 which was impugned before the Tribunal by the respondent no.1. On account of the said corrigendum, the petitioner came to be posted at Palghar and respondent no.1 who was already working at Palghar came to be transferred to Dapcheri. It is this corrigendum which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the challenge at the instance of respondent no.1 and was pleased to set aside the corrigendum on the finding that it is not based on administrative reason but was obviously at the behest of MLA, Palghar. The view so taken by the Tribunal is just and proper in the fact situation of the present case. 3 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 was only on probation and could not have been transferred from 3 wp2904.11.sxw Dapcheri where he was working only for one year. Notably, the petitioner did not challenge the general transfer order. The argument now raised by the petitioner could have been relevant if the petitioner were to challenge the general transfer order where- under respondent no.1 came to be posted at Palghar. In the present petition, that challenge cannot be countenanced. 4 The next argument of the petitioner is that on the one hand the Tribunal has observed that it will not decide the matter on the basis of plea of political influence used by the two private parties but on the other hand the opinion of the Tribunal is founded on the recommendation made by the MLA in favour of the petitioner. This argument clearly overlooks that the Tribunal has found that the corrigendum was not for administrative reason. No more and no less. On the basis of this finding, the Tribunal has interfered with the corrigendum dated 1.9.2010. Hence no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. 5 At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of the operation of the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that 4 wp2904.11.sxw petitioner has been working at Palghar and may take up the matter in appeal to the Apex Court. Indeed, the petitioner is free to file appeal and if he succeeds before the Apex Court, the status-quo ante order can always be passed to adjust equities. Thus, the prayer for stay is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)