1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4098 OF 2009 Manoj s/o Venkoba Lokhande Age: 44 Yrs. occu. Service as Section Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sengaon, District Hingoli. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli. 3) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. 4) The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. - RESPONDENTS 2 ***** Mr.MP Kale, Advocate for Petitioner; Mrs.RK Laddha,AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 4. Mr.SR Bagal, Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, Adv. for Resp.No.3. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 18th December, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard finally. 2) The petitioner was in employment at Parbhani Zilla Parishad. Due to formation of new Zilla Parishad at Hingoli, his services were assigned, on his willingness, for Zilla Parishad, Hingoli and he is working there. The petitioner and few other employees feel that their representation, for repatriation in terms of the prevalent Rules, is not considered, which has caused panic to them. 3) The inaction on the part of the respondents is felt aggravating and hence the writ petition. 3 4) There is no controversy about the employment and status of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has been promoted and presently he is a Desk Officer on a promotional post at Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, which aspect, one cannot ignore. It is unimaginable that the petitioner’s services were transferred to Zilla Parishad, Hingoli purely on temporary basis as the notification issued by the Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mumbai dated 17.3.2001 clearly spelt out the position. The petitioner and several others had filed Writ Petition No.2068/2004, seeking directions to consider the representation dated 13th May, 2002, pursuant to the directions, the matter was considered by the authorities. The representation was indeed rejected by communication dated 8th February, 2007. The petitioner still wants that the appeal should be entertained by the authorities. There is no such appeal pending. 5) One does not know, if the petitioner is repatriated to his original district at Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, there shall not be change in the seniority list, as the petitioner asserts, he is senior most in the list of seniority in Parbhani district. 6) We find with the affidavit in reply a 4 communication by the Divisional Commissioner to the Deputy Secretary in the Mantralaya, seeking clarification on the aspect. Seeking Such clarification, by itself will not entitle to entertain a writ petition in our extraordinary jurisdiction. It is a policy decision of the Government, which should not be interfered with in such a casual manner. 7) The petition lacks merit, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. sd/- sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp4098.09 fldr.17.12.09 Authentic copy (BD VADNERE,PS)