9.wp.10365-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10365 OF 2009 Dr.Manjusha Molwane. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and 3 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate a/w. V.S. Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P., for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar, Advocate for respondent No.4. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The Tribunal has held that the order extending deputation of the petitioner on foreign service was contrary to the rules framed under Article 309 of Constitution because according to the rules once a Government Servant who is on deputation is reverted back to his parent department for a period of four years, he cannot be again sent on deputation. Though, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner orally argues before us that though there was an order of reversion made, it was not acted 9.wp.10365-09 2 upon, there is no averment in the Petition. In the absence of any averment in the Petition claiming that the finding of the Tribunal that there was reversion of the petitioner to the parent department is wrong, no exception to the finding can be taken. The learned Counsel then submitted that the observations in the order of the Tribunal that the petitioner directly approached the Finance Minister and managed to get extension of the deputation is wrong because the petitioner did not do anything and did not approach the finance minister directly. Therefore, we asked the learned Counsel to show us averments in the Petition to that effect, but, the learned Counsel fairly stated that there is no averment to that effect in the Petition. In the absence of necessary averments in the Petition, no exception can be taken to the order of the Tribunal. Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (A.R. JOSHI,J)