1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5158 OF 2009 Arunkumar s/o Machindra Ovhal ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.G. Mete, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents no.1 & 2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 21st August 2009 PER COURT : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to an order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.511 of 2009, dated 28.7.2009, dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 30.5.2009, by which the petitioner was transferred from Latur to Aurangabad. 2. The order impugned in the present petition, dated 30.5.2009 discloses that the petitioner was transferred from Latur to Aurangabad on 2 account of administrative exigencies. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the order by which he was transferred to Aurangabad, filed Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while considering the plea of the petitioner that the order of transfer was mala fide and had been effected before completion of the tenure of three years at Latur, examined the original record and noticed that several complaints had been made against the petitioner, particularly his working and his behaviour and in order to ensure smooth administrative functions, the petitioner came to be transferred from Latur to Aurangabad. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the proposal for transfer of the petitioner was recommended, which is duly supported by the reasons. In the light of that, therefore, the Tribunal found that no case was made out for interfering with the order of transfer. 3. Mr V.G. Mete, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us hat the daughter of the petitioner is a student and, therefore, the petitioner may be retained at Latur for one year in order to ensure that the education of the daughter of the petitioner is not jeopardized. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Supreme Court in Director of School Education, Madras & ors. vs. O. Karuppa Thevan & anr., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666 . This was a case of mid term transfer and in the light of that the Supreme Court expressed its opinion that although there was no such rule, the Court was of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are 3 studying should be given the due weight, if the exigencies of service are not urgent. The ratio of the said judgment, in our opinion, would not apply to the facts of the present case as the order dated 30.5.2009 is not a mid term transfer. Moreover, the administrative exigencies demanded the transfer of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner came to be transferred. It is urged before us that the petitioner has aged parents to look after. However, in the light of the administrative exigency for effecting the transfer of the petitioner the petitioner has been transferred, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp5158.09