1 wp1692.11.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1692 OF 2011 Balku Bharma Vadd. ..Petitioner. Vs. The Collector, Sangli & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. G.M.Savagave, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P.Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. Mr. Bhushan Bandiwadekar, advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : MARCH 14, 2011. P.C. 1. This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 13 th January, 2011 in O.A. No.46 of 2011. The said O.A. was filed to challenge the order dated 5 th January, 2011 issued under the signature of Section Officer, Revenue and Forest Department, State of Maharashtra, whereby the Respondent No. 5 was transferred to place referred to therein. The Petitioner 2 wp1692.11.sxw challenges the said order on the ground that he had made representation to the then Minister for transferring him as Tahasildar of Shirol in District Kolhapur after the retirement of Mr.D.N.Mane on 31 st December, 2010. Inspite of favourable opinion recorded by the Minister on 16 th July, 2010 on the representation made by the Petitioner, the claim of the Petitioner has been overlooked while issuing impugned order dated 5 th January, 2011. The argument of the Petitioner is that only formal transfer order of the Petitioner was to be issued by the Department as the Minister had already taken that decision in principle, which has been noted on the file on 16 th July, 2010 itself. The argument though attractive, does not commend to us. It is not in dispute that the Ministry was subsequently changed. After the change of Ministry, all proposals were reconsidered, as is noted on the file, in particular, in paragraph­5 at page 36 of the paper book. Thereafter, the impugned transfer order in favour of the Respondent No.5 has been passed on 5 th January, 2011. We are afraid that the Petitioner cannot claim that any vested right has accrued in his favour on account of the noting made by the Minister on the file on 16 th July, 2010. It is eventually the final order of transfer passed by the 3 wp1692.11.sxw Competent Authority of the concerned department that ought to prevail. 2. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, there is no substance in this Petition. The same is dismissed. (MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)