Dr. Sudhir Vithal Madhekar vs State Of Maharashtra Thorugh ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1620 Bom

                                                                    16.9571.18-wp.docx


         Digitally
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         signed by
         BASAVRAJ
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL    Date:                         WRIT PETITION NO. 9571 OF 2018
         2023.02.17
         13:11:37
         +0530
                      Dr. Sudhir Vithal Madhekar                     ..... Petitioner

                             Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                ..... Respondents


                      Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar for the Petitioner
                      Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the State


                                              CORAM:     S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                         SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                              DATED :    FEBRUARY 16, 2023

                      P.C.

1. The grievance of the Petitioner appears to be the request of the

Petitioner for transfer to Mumbai is not considered, whereas, the

request of Respondent No.2 for transfer is accepted.

2. The Petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not

entertain the original Application filed by the Petitioner observing

that the Petitioner's request for posting made by him is still under

consideration and there is nothing on record filed by the Petitioner

that his request is rejected.

3. The Petitioner also refers to the observations made by this

Court in earlier Writ Petition No.4431 of 2013 under judgment dated

Basavraj 1/2 16.9571.18-wp.docx

14th August 2014. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

that it is only because Respondent No.2 is more influential and

enjoys political patronage, the request of Respondent No.2 is always

considered. The Petitioner has medical issues and as such, he has

requested for transfer to Mumbai. Same is not considered nor the

cognizance is taken of the Petitioner's request.

4. It is more than five years, the petition is pending here. The

Petitioner had approached the Tribunal in the year 2017. Almost six

years have lapsed. The Petitioner is serving at the Government

Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad. The Petitioner has

completed about six years at Aurangabad. The Petitioner would

make a representation to the Government with regard to his request

for transfer at Mumbai. The Respondents authority may consider

the said request of the Petitioner on its own merits and in

accordance with law and policy, if such Application is made by the

Petitioner.

5. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                    (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Basavraj                                                           2/2