1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3317 OF 2010 Dr.Trimbak s/o Deorao Khot, Age 57 years, Occu.Service, As Civil Surgeon, District Hospital Nandurbar, District Nandurbar, R/o C/o District Hospital, Nandurbar, Dist.Nandurbar .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Director, Health Service Saint George Hospital Compound, Mumbai .. RESPONDENTS Shri M.P.Kale, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Khandare, Govt.Pleader for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 16th April, 2010 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 stage of admission. 2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing and setting aside the 2 order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 9.4.2010, in Original Application No.206/2010, dismissing the original application. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.1.2010. 3. The petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunal praying therein that the respondents be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner which was challenging the transfer of the petitioner. The Tribunal found that it was the sole discretion of the authorities to transfer an employee and, therefore, did not find any reason to grant the relief claimed in the original application. 4. We have heard Shri Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Khandare, learned Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader states that the representation of the petitioner can be considered by the authorities while effecting the general transfers of the employees. Shri Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioner is agreeable for consideration of his representation at the time of general transfers of the employees to be made in the month of April-May. 3 5. In the result, therefore, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner at the time of effecting the general transfers of the employees in the month of April-May – 2010. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3317.10wp)