[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION (L) NO. 459 FO 2008 (L) NO. 459 FO 2008 (L) NO. 459 FO 2008 Shri Bapurao Dhondiba Kadam. ... Petitioner. Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Mumbai & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. P.B.Shah advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.J.Sawant Senior Counsel alongwith D.A.Nalawade GP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar and and and Sri Sri Sri A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : July 22, 2008. : July 22, 2008. : July 22, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was transferred to the post of President, Industrial Court, under Order dated 26th December 2005 and in that connection he sought to rely upon the Notification stated to have been issued by the Government on the said date. The reply filed on behalf of the Government [ 2 ] discloses the letter which was received by the Government from the High Court, which clearly states that the petitioner was nominated for the appointment as President of Industrial Court, Mumbai and was not transferred from District Court, Pune to the Industrial Court, Mumbai. 3. Undisputedly, the transfer if any of a District Judge to any other post has to be by the Order of the High Court and the petitioner has not been able to place on record any such order from the High Court. Undisputedly, Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Judicial Officers of the Courts of Enquiry, Labour Courts, Industrial Courts (Recruitment, Appointment and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1999 provides thus :- "4. Appointment to the post of the President shall be made by the Governor in consultation Concultation with the High Court, by any one of the following modes, as may be determined by the High Court, namely :- (1) Promotion, (2) Nomination, (3) Transfer. " Being so, the appointment to the said post has to be made by the Governor, however, the mode of appointment [ 3 ] is left to the determination of the High Court. 4. The letter dated 6th December, 2005 from the High Court to the Government of Maharshtra in relation to the appointment of the Petitioner as President of the Industrial Court Mumbai clearly discloses that the petitioner was selected to be appointed as President, Industrial Court by way of nomination. Once the appointment is by way of nomination, Rule 8(b) of the said Rules is not attracted, as it clearly states that the retirement age is 65 years, would be only in case of appointment by way of transfer. Since the petitioner has not been able to disclose any material on record which could substantiate his claim about his appointment to the post of President of Industrial Court being on transfer, there is no substance in the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Even the Notification which was issued on 26th December, 2005, the English version thereof clearly shows that the Government of Maharashtra had appointed the petitioner, who is District and Sessions Judge at Pune to be the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai and it nowhere speaks about the transfer of the petitioner from the post of District Judge to the post of President of Industrial Court. On the contrary, even the Marathi version of the [ 4 ] Notification discloses that the petitioner was the District Judge and in that capacity he was appointed as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal. Undoubtedly in the Marathi version the word transfer has been used in the Notification, however, as it has been clarified by the Government itself that there has been no such order from the High Court transferring the petitioner from the post of the District judge to the post of Presiding Officer of Industrial Court, merely because the word transfer is used in Marathi Version of the Notification issued by the Government in relation to the appointment of the petitioner as the Presiding Officer of Industrial Court, it would not create any right in favour of the petitioner to claim that he was transferred from the post of District Judge Pune to the Post of Presiding Officer of Industrial Court, Mumbai. The records clearly disclose that he was merely nominated to be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court. 6. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner. The petition therefore stands rejected. [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]