1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3241 OF 2010 Rustum s/o Bajirao Wanave, Age 47 years, Occu.Service, R/o Wadwani, Taluka Wadwani, District Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary of Rural Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Wadwani, Taluka Wadwani, District Beed ..RESPONDENTS Shri S.J.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Shri U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13th April 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.3.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed by which the additional charge of the Extension 2 Officer came to be withdrawn. 2. The impugned order dated 26.3.2010 states that the additional charge which was entrusted to the petitioner as an Extension Officer stands withdrawn. 3. Undisputedly, the order does not visit the petitioner with any civil consequences nor does it visit the petitioner with any financial loss vis-a- vis his salary. The petitioner does not have any legal right much less any enforceable statutory right to retain the additional charge which is conferred on him. Undisputedly also the Chief Executive Officer possesses the requisite administrative powers of withdrawal and conferment of the additional charge on an employee. Shri Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid order is an abuse of the powers conferred on the Chief Executive Officer and is in excess of the said powers. It is also urged before us that the work of the petitioner as an Extension Officer has been exemplary and the petitioner has annexed the requisite certificate to the petition. It is further stated that the work which was being done by the petitioner would suffer a set back on account of the withdrawal of the additional charge. 4. The Chief Executive Officer is the best authority in the exercise of the administrative powers to confer the additional charge or to withdraw the additional charge which was conferred. We, therefore, see no mala 3 fides nor do we find that the Chief Executive Officer lacks the jurisdiction to pass the said order. The impugned order does not visit the petitioner with any consequence much less civil or financial loss. The petitioner cannot and does not have any legally enforceable right to retain the additional charge which was conferred on him. 5. In that light of the matter we do not see any merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3241.10wp)