1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8318 OF 2009 Yogesh S/o Trimbak Rathod. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 10th DECEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The issue raised in this petition is in respect of mutual transfer. Under the ad-interim orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal the petitioner was protected for some time. The petitioner's wife is serving in 2 Zilla Parishad Aurangabad. the petitioner is transferred under orders dated 26th March 2008 to Aurangabad and the respondent No.4 is transferred in place of the petitioner at Mumbai. 3) The authorities thereafter decided that the order of mutual transfer was against the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") and the Government Circular dated 7th June 2006. Therefore, the order is cancelled and withdrawn. 4) The Tribunal considered all the issues raised by the contesting parties and reached conclusion that mutual transfer in respect of petitioner's post is not acceptable under the provisions of the Act. The relevant Government Resolutions were also considered. As regards the Government Resolution date 9th November 1998 we find that the same relates to the service conditions of the Zilla Parishad employees. We have even noticed that the Original Application was filed wherein respondent No.4 was not made party and the interim relief was obtained. 3 5) We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Tribunal. In view of the provisions of the Act we find that the said posts were described as non transferable posts. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mr. V.M. Joshi who is working at Aurangabad is to retire on 31st December 2010 and the petitioner or respondent No.4 could be considered and appointed in his place by way of transfer. We leave this issue for the consideration of the authorities. 6) In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.8318.09