1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6019 OF 2009 Swapnil S/o.Balasaheb Jadhav, Age-20 years, Occu-Education, R/o.Station Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Directorate of Medical Education and Reasearch Mumbai. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Wani Road, Mhasrul, Nashik 3. The dean Govt. Medical College, Ghati Hospital Compound, Near Panchakki Road, Aurangabad. 4. The Dean, Govt.Medical College, Vazirabad, Nanded – 431 001 RESPONDENTS Mr.A.M.Nagarkar, h/f. Mr. K.M.Nagarkar, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned counsel for respondents/State (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 10/09/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. At the outset, Shri.Nagarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete respondent no.2. Deletion of respondent no.2 permitted at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 29/07/2009 issued by respondent no.1. 4. By virtue of the aforesaid communication which is impugned in the present petition, the petitioner’s application dated 06/03/2009 seeking transfer to another Institute came to be rejected by respondents on the ground that the petitioner’s application was incomplete as the petitioner had not indicated the name and address of the recognized college to which the petitioner desires to be transferred. 5. It appears that the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition no.4669/2009 in this Court and the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (P.V.Hardas,J.) was a member, by judgment dated 18/07/2009 had allowed the petitioner and had directed respondent no.1 to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with Law. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, it appears that the 3 respondents have decided the application and have rejected the same on the grounds which are adverted to above. 6. Shri.Nagarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that without dilating on the question as to whether the petitioner had submitted a complete application or not, the petitioner may be granted liberty of submitting an application afresh complete in all respects with a further direction to the respondents to decide the same in accordance with Law. 7. We see considerable force and merit in the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore we permit the petitioner to submit an application afresh in accordance with Law complete in all respects to the respondent no.1 seeking transfer of the petitioner to another recognized Institute. This be done by the petitioner within 2 weeks from today. We further direct the respondent no.1 to decide the application of the petitioner, if submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with Law, within a period of 4 weeks from its submission uninfluenced by the order by which the earlier application was rejected. 8. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp6019-09