1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3703 OF 2007. ( Dharmik Pandurang Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra & oth.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.K. Pardhy, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI AND R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 22, 2007. 1. In view of the liberty granted to the petitioner while deciding Writ Petition No.2190 of 2007 the petitioner has submitted his representation Annexure-V dated 2nd July, 2007. The representation consists of various points namely : i) Petitioner's salary will be reduced since place where the petitioner is transferred establishment of Junior College does not exist, and consequently the petitioner shall suffer due to reduction in pay by Rs.200/- which petitioner was getting for being head of Junior College. (ii) That the petitioner is due to retire on 31st August, 2008 and transferred at the fag end of service. 2 (iii) That the transfer is vindictive since he had objected to transfer the son of the secretary who was holding post of part-time Librarian to the establishment where full time post was available. 2. Petitioner admits that the representation given by him was considered by the management, but rejected vindictively. 3. Order passed by the management, Annexure-VI page 28 reveals that the petitioner was given personal hearing, however, in the midst, the petitioner had withdrawn. The management has considered and rejected the petitioner's representation. 4. We find that the petitioner has not put forward any circumstance which may be special and peculiar to him causing great prejudice to him. 5. The petitioner seems to be labouring under the impression that once representation is submitted it must result in the decision favourable to him. 6. In this background we find that the petition does not call for any interference. 3 7. The petition, therefore, does not have any merit hence, dismissed. JUDGE. JUDGE. RR.