{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5654 OF 2009 Nagnath Ganpati Gorgile Age-30 years, Occ-Service as a Teacher R/o Ajamabad, Tq-Palam, Dist-Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, Through its Chief Executive Officer, RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.R.Mantri, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 12th October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the {2} stage of admission. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer and post the petitioner at Bori Tq-Jintoor, or within 30 kms from Bori. 3. The facts, leading to the institution of the present petition are briefly stated thus - The petitioner came to be appointed as a primary teacher at Nanded Zilla Parishad on 14.07.2003. His wife, Manisha is also in the service of Zilla Parishad. The petitioner sought transfer at Bori in order to be in the company of his wife, who is posted at Bori, as the petitioner was working in Zilla Parishad Nanded while wife of the petitioner is working at Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. The necessary rules in respect of inter Zilla Parishad transfer contemplates that the persons requesting for transfer to forgo his seniority in the parent Zilla Parishad and to begin afresh in the order of seniority in the Zilla Parishad where is requests to be transferred. The petitioner accordingly came to be transferred. The purpose for which the petitioner had forgone his seniority has not been achieved, as the petitioner and his wife are not posted on the same station. 4. Mr.Nagargoje, learned counsel for respondent No.2, states on instructions that respondent No.2 would consider the {3} plight of the petitioner sympathetically and in accordance with law in the transfers to be effected in the next academic session i.e. 2010-11. It is stated before us that mid term transfer would not be in the interest of the students who are being taught by the petitioner. We accept the aforesaid statement as undertaking to the Court and in the light of the statement, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Accordingly, we allow this petition and make the Rule absolute in the terms of the statement made on behalf of respondent No.2 with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5654-09