Bombay High Court
Archana Shailendra Gaikwad vs Shyam Shivajirao Lohi And Others on 18 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7812-DB
1 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8511 OF 2024
Smt. Archana w/o Shailendra Gaikwad,
Age : 51 years,Occu.: Service as RTO, Pune,
R/o.: A-301, Opula 24-K, Vishal Nagar,
Pimple- Nilakh, Pune 411 027,
Cell : 7738900057 .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Shri Shyam s/o Shivajirao Lohi,
Age : 49 years, Occu.: Service (as RTO)
R/o.: Flat No. 303, Angeera Woods,
Near Mehrun Lake, Lake City, Jalgan
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Additional Chief Secretary,
Home (Transport) Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
3. The Transport Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, 5th Floor,
Telecom Bhawan, Fountain,
MTNL Bldg. No.2, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001 .... RESPONDENTS
......
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P. S. Dighe i/be Mr. Ajay
S. Deshpande and Abhay D. Ostwal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Kunal Kale i/b
Mr. Avinash Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 -State
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9474 OF 2024
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home (Transport), Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2. The Transport Commissioner,
2 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
Maharashtra State, 5th Floor,
Telecom Bhavan, Fountain,
MTNL Bld. No. 2, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001. .... PETITIONERS
(Orig. Resp. Nos.1 & 2 in O.A.)
VERSUS
1. Shri Shyam Shivajrao Lohi,
Age ; 49 years, Occu.: Service as RTO,
R/o.: Flat No. 303, Angeera Woods,
Near Mehrun Lake, Lake City, Jalgaon.
2. Smt. Archana w/o Shailendra Gaikwad,
Age : 51 years, Occu.: Service as RTO, Pune,
R/o.: A-301, Opula 24K, Vishal Nagar,
Pimple Nilakh, Pune - 411 027 .... RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Applicant in A.O.)
....
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for the Petitioners-State
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Kunal Kale i/b
Mr. Avinash Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P. S. Dighe i/be Mr. Ajay
S. Deshpande and Abhay D. Ostwal, Advocate for Respondent No.2
....
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11/03/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18/03/2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Sandipkumar C. More )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the rival parties.
2. The subject matter under challenge in both these writ
petitions, is the order dated 30/07/2024 in Original Application
3 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
No.600 of 2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as
'the learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal under the impugned
order has quashed and set aside Government Resolution dated
13/06/2024 issued by respondent No.2-State in Writ Petition
N.8511 of 2024 under which modification in the posting on
promotion given to the petitioner in the same petition i.e. Smt.
Archana Shailendra Gaikwad affecting the earlier promotional
posting granted to the present respondent No.1 - Shri Shyam
Shivajirao Lohi in this petition. It is to be noted that under Writ
Petition N.9474 of 2024 the State through Additional Chief
Secretary, Home (Transport) Department Mantralaya, Mumbai, has
also challenged the same judgment and order passed by the
learned Tribunal. Thus, both petitions are for quashing the
Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 under which the
petitioner - Archana has been posted as a RTO Group-A at Pune,
whereas respondent Shyam Lohi is posted at Chandrapur as a RTO
Group-A. To avoid ambiguity, the parties are referred to by their
names.
3. Background facts are as under :
4 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
Petitioner - Archana joined the service as a Assistant RTO
after her selection through MPSC on 04/09/2002. Subsequently
on 26/08/2015 she was promoted as a Deputy RTO and in the
month of June, 2018 she was posted at Akaluj, District Solapur as
a Deputy RTO. While in service, the petitioner - Archana had
made several representations / applications to the Principal
Secretary with request that she be posted at Pune or nearby place
like Pimpri-Chinchwad due to health issue of her husband as well
as ailments of her mother aged about 78 years. Additionally, she
personally visited the Principal Secretary and requested for such
posting. However, earlier Principal Secretary got transferred on
26/02/2024 and in his place a new officer joined. On 28/02/2024
the petitioner - Archana again made a fresh application before new
Principal Secretary for the same request. However, in the first week
of March, the preparation for Lok-Sabha elections was going on.
On 16/03/2024, the State issued a Government Resolution
whereby in all 23 Deputy RTO were temporarily promoted as RTO
Group-A and they were given postings to the respective places as
mentioned in the said Government Resolution. As per the said
Government Resolution, Shyam Lohi was given promotional posting
at Pune District. Despite issuance of said Government Resolution,
the said order of promotion and posting was not implemented due
5 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
to Code of Conduct on account of Lok-Sabha elections. As such,
the petitioner - Archana remained at Akaluj on her earlier posting
and was a Nodal officer at Solapur District for poling which took
place on 07/05/2024, 13/05/2024 and 20/05/2024. After poling
was over, the petitioner - Archana again visited the Joint Secretary
and reminded him about her pending applications since 2020 and
also the recent application dated 28/02/2024 requesting for
posting her at Pune on account of medical treatment of her
husband and her mother. Thereafter, on 13/06/2024 the State
Government and Competent Authority considered the request of
the petitioner - Archana and by issuing the impugned Government
Resolution dated 13/06/2024 and modified the places of
promotional postings of the petitioner - Archana as well as the
respondent - Shyam Lohi. Accordingly, the petitioner - Archana
was posted at Pune as a RTO Pune whereas the respondent -
Shyam Lohi was posted as a RTO Chandrapur. The petitioner -
Archana as per the said Government Resolution joined her post at
Pune on 14/06/2024. However, feeling dissatisfied with the said
Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 the respondent -
Shyam Lohi filed Original Application No.600 of 2024 before the
learned Tribunal and accordingly the learned Tribunal under the
impugned judgment and order quashed the Government Resolution
6 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
dated 13/06/2024 and directed State Government and the
Transport Commissioner to implement the Government Resolution
dated 16/03/2024 to the extent of promotional postings of the
petitioner - Archana as well as the respondent - Shyam Lohi.
Hence, these petitions.
4. The learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde for the petitioner -
Archana vehemently submitted that the respondent / State has
rightly considered the applications of the petitioner- Archana on
account of illness of her husband and mother and modified the
Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 by giving her posting at
Pune as requested by her. According to him, there was no
necessity of giving reason by the State in the subsequent
Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024. The learned Tribunal
definitely erred in observing that for such modification there was
no proposal from the Civil Service Board. He added that in case of
promotional posting, no such proposal from Civil Service Board
was in fact required and it was clearly pointed out by the petitioner
- Archana in her reply affidavit.
5. The learned AGP while arguing on the writ petition filed by
the State, also supported the submissions made by the learned
7 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
senior counsel Mr. Dhorde and reiterated that there is no statutory
provision which has laid down a specific procedure which is to be
followed for effecting posting on promotion. The learned senior
counsel Mr. Dhorde as well as learned AGP vehemently argued that
the Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 was not published
or implemented and therefore, the observation of the learned
Tribunal that no opportunity was given to the respondent - Shyam
Lohi or there was need for certain statutory provision for making
modification in the Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 by
the subsequent Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024.
6. The learned AGP by placing reliance on the Government
Resolution dated 31/01/2014 issued by General Administration
Department, submitted that even if any promotional posting is to
be given to the candidate or person, the final authority for such
promotional posting is the Competent Authority of State as
mentioned in the said Government Resolution specially under
clause 3.7. Thus, the learned AGP as well as the learned senior
counsel Mr. Dhorde prayed for setting aside the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned senior
counsel Mr. Dhorde relied on following citations.
8 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
A) Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of
Bhiar and aothers, AIR 1991 SC 532;
B) Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas,
AIR 1993 SC 2444;
C) Sk. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union
of India and others, (2022) 12 SCC 1;
D) Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178;
E) The State of Maharashtra and another vs.
Omprakash Ghanshyamdas Mudiraj and
another, 2009(2) AIR Bom R 22 (DB);
F) V. B. Gadekar vs. Maharashtra Housing and
Area Development Authority and another,
2008(2) Mh.L.J.;
G) State of Maharashtra and others vs. Deepak
Bubudas Vaishnav, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom
1491;
H) State of Maharashtra vs. Ashok
Ramchandra Kore and another, 2009(4)
Mh.L.J. 163;
I) S. C. Saxena vs. Union of India and others,
(2006) 9 SCC 583;
J) Ashok Laxman Gaikwad vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2006) 9 SCC 587 ;
K) Amarjeet Singh and others vs. Devi Ratan
and others, (2010)1 SCC 417 and
9 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
L) Edukanti Kistamma (dead) through LRs. and
others vs. S. Venkatareddy (dead) through
LRs. and others, (2010) 1 SCC 756.
The learned AGP also placed reliance on the following
judgments.
A) Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and
others, 2024 SCC OnLine 279;
B) Union of India and others vs. S. L. Abbas, (1993) 4
SCC 357 &
C) N. K. Singh vs. Union of India and others, (1994) 6
SCC 98.
7. On the contrary, the learned senior counsel Mr. Deshmukh
arguing on behalf of the respondent - Shyam Lohi strongly
supported the impugned judgment and order. According to him,
the Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 was in fact
published and it was duly communicated to the persons mentioned
therein. According to him, as per the said Government Resolution
the respective postings were already given to the officers mentioned
therein except the petitioner - Archana and the respondent -
Shyam Lohi, on 06/06/2024 itself. He further pointed out that the
petitioner - Archana must have influenced the concerned authority
in between 06/06/2024 and 13/06/2024 by illegal means and got
her posting modified. Further, the learned senior counsel Mr.
10 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
Deshmukh vehemently argued that the entire process carried out
by the State Government in modifying the places of postings of the
petitioner - Archana and the respondent - Shyam Lohi was highly
suspicious and without any opportunity of being heard to the
respondent - Shyam Lohi. He pointed out that even the learned
Tribunal had directed the State Government to produce record in
respect of procedure adopted for such modification, but the State
Government withheld the said record for the reason best known to
it. Thus, he claimed that the modification order was arbitrary and
the learned Tribunal has rightly set aside the same. In support of
his submissions, he relied on following citations.
A) Smita Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, arising out of SLP©
No(s).23966-23968 of 2022, decided on
03/05/2024;
B) Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India and others,
in Cvil Appeal No. 2679 of 2024, arising
out of SLP © NO.5278 of 2019, decided on
20/02/2024;
C) Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai
Jayantibhai Patel and others, 2006 DGLS
(SC) 745;
11 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
D) Asha Sharma vs. Chandigrah
Administration and others, 2011 DGLS (SC)
698;
E) L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and
others, (1997) 3 SCC 261;
F) T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of India and
others, 2014(1) AIR Bom R 110 &
G) Syed Yakoob vs. K. S. Radhkrishnan, 1964
AIR(SC) 477.
8. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the entire documents
on record alongwith the impugned judgment and order.
9. On going through the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Tribunal, it reveals that the learned Tribunal has set aside
the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 in respect of
modification mainly on the grounds that the representations made
by the petitioner - Archana since 2020 till 28/02/2024 might have
been considered by the Competent Authority and thereafter, posted
her to Chandrapur under the Government Resolution dated
16/03/2024 and that the Competent Authority failed to give
reasons as to why there was subsequent modification only in
respect of postings given to the petitioner - Archana and the
respondent - Shyam Lohi. The learned Tribunal has also held that
12 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
the Government Resolution of modification was arbitrary and
issued under probable influence by the petitioner - Archana.
10. According to the petitioner - Archana, the Competent
Authority - State considered her difficulty in a proper sense and in
view of illness of her husband and mother, rightly modified the
earlier Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 and posted her
at Pune. According to her, no proposal from Civil Service Board,
was in fact required for such subsequent modification. Further, as
per the learned AGP, who has also challenged the Government
Resolution of modification, there was no statutory provision laid
down to adopt a specific procedure for causing any modification in
respect of posting on promotion and therefore, as per the earlier
Government Resolution dated 31/01/2014 Competent Authority of
State was very much empowered to effect the modification. The
learned AGP as well as the learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde both
submitted that no mandatory rule was violated by such
modification as it was done by the Competent Authority
considering the representations of the petitioner - Archana.
According to both of them, while effecting such modification, there
was no mala fide intention on the part of the Competent Authority
13 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
and thus, the scope of judicial review in this matter is not
available.
11. In the back drop of these submissions, various citations
relied upon by the learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde can be gone
into. In case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others (supra), it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that transfers made by the
Competent Authority on request of servants without violating any
mandatory rule, cannot be interfered with by the High Court.
Further in the case of Union of India and others vs. S. L. Abbas
(supra), it has been observed that order of transfer made without
following guidelines, cannot be interfered with by court unless it is
vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of statutory provision.
Further in the case of Sk. Nausad Rahman and others (supra), it
has been observed that 'transfer' being condition of service, it is
within powers of employer to take policy decision and power of
judicial review cannot be exercised to interfere with such policy
decision. In the case of Rajednra Singh and others (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is an exclusive prerogative
of the State Government as to where the employee should be
transferred and in absence of any mala fides there shall be no
interference of Courts. However, these observations have come in
14 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
the cases of transfer whereas we are dealing the issue of allotting
place of posting. Therefore, these observations specially made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court dealing with the cases
of transfer, are not helpful.
12. The learned AGP also relied on certain observations of the
Hon'ble Apex Court. However, on going through the said
observations in the judgments relied by the learned AGP, they are
also in respect of transfer cases. However, in case of Union of
India vs. S. L. Abbas (supra), the scope of judicial review is
clarified and it has been observed that such review is permissible
only when there is a clear violation of the statutory provision or the
transfer is persuaded by mala fide. Here in this case, we are
dealing with the issue of modification in the earlier places of
posting of the petitioner - Archana and the respondent - Shyam
Lohi. The learned Tribunal has set aside such modification mainly
by observing that it is arbitrary and passed without assigning any
reason. Admittedly, the chronology of the facts is to be considered
to ascertain whether there was influence on the part of the
petitioner - Archana to cause such modification.
15 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
13. From the impugned judgment, it reveals that on 16/03/2024
the Competent Authority of State issued Government Resolution in
respect of assigning promotional post to 23 Deputy RTOs in Group-
A to the post of RTO Group-A. The record shows that the
petitioner - Archana was definitely junior to the respondent -
Shyam Lohi in the said list. Though it is disputed that whether the
said Government Resolution was published on the website of
Government, but it is not in dispute that immediately after said
Government Resolution was issued, Code of Conduct was declared
by the Election Commission of India and therefore, the earlier
postings of the aforesaid 23 officers remained ineffective. However,
it is extremely important to note that on 06/06/2024 most of the
officers promoted vide Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024,
were relieved from their earlier posts for joining their new postings
i.e. after the end of Code of Conduct. It is only in respect of the
petitioner - Archana and the respondent - Shyam Lohi subsequent
modification under Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 was
issued wherein their respective places of postings as mentioned in
Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 were interchanged.
14. Admittedly, various representations were made by the
petitioner - Archana since 2020 till 28/02/2024 with the
16 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
Competent Authority with a request to place her either at Pune or
Pimpri-Chinchwad considering illness of her husband and mother.
It is to be noted that last representation was made by her on
28/02/2024. Though there was dispute between the parties
whether the said Government Resolution was really made, but by
presuming that it was made by the petitioner - Archana, the
Competent Authority issued Government Resolution dated
16/03/2024 by placing her at Chandrapur. Thus, an inference can
safely be drawn that even after her representations till 28/02/2024
the Competent Authority of State posted her at Chandrapur. This
fact clearly indicates that the Competent Authority must have
considered her earlier representations but still chose to post her at
Chandrapur and not at Pune or Primpri-Chindhwad. Further, it is
extremely important to note that other officers from Government
Resolution dated 16/03/2024 were given postings after the Code of
Conduct on 06/06/2024 to respective places as mentioned in
Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024. Therefore, it is
inexplicable on the part of the Competent Authority of State as to
why the places of postings of the petitioner - Archana and the
respondent - Shyam Lohi were interchanged under the Government
Resolution dated 13/06/2024 within only six or seven days. On
bare perusal of the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 it is
17 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
clearly evident that no reason is mentioned for such modification
therein.
15. The learned senior counsel Mr. Deshmukh for the respondent
- Shyam Lohi has supported the impugned judgment mainly on the
ground of arbitrariness. He has relied on various citations as
mentioned above, wherein it has been observed that judicial review
is very much available if it is found that any order is made
arbitrarily and without following any proper procedure. Even if we
hold that there was no specific procedure for the impugned
modification laid down, but from the circumstances on record the
arbitrary nature of such modification can be ascertained.
16. The Competent Authority of State has supported the
Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 on the ground that it
was final authority as per clause 3.7 of the Government Resolution
dated 31/01/2014 and therefore, the respondent - Shyam Lohi
could not challenge the same. However, it appears that the learned
Tribunal has relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the cases of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai
Jayantibhai Patel and others, 2006 (8) SCC 200 & Asha
Sharma vs. Chandigrah Administration and others, 2011
18 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
DGLS (SC) 698. The learned Tribunal has made special reference
in respect of observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Asha Sharma (supra). According to which whether the process of
decision making is valid, but proper reasons are not recorded for
arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of
arbitrariness. Here in this case though the Competent Authority
under the modification has taken a decision for placing the
petitioner - Archana at Pune, but no reasoning is there on record.
It is extremely important to note that the respondent - Shyam Lohi
had also filed an application under Right to Information Act from
the State for getting reasons for such modification. However,
despite asking for such documents, the State did not provide the
same to him. It has been opined by the learned Tribunal that the
respondent State at their own must have produced the said
documents on record and non-production of such documents
would lead to an adverse inference and it can be treated as one
more circumstance against the State.
17. In the case of Smita Shrivastava (supra) the Hon'ble Apex
Court while setting aside the order of State Government and its
officials has made observation that as a consequence, they are of
the firm view that the appellant deserves a direction for restitutive
19 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
relief with compensation for the misery piled upon her owing to the
arbitrary and high-handed action of the State Government and its
officials. On going through the aforesaid citation the Hon'ble Apex
Court had set aside order of the State Government by specially
observing that even the concerned High Court in refusing relief of
appointment to the appellant on the post of Samvida Shala
Shikshak Grade-III despite holding that denial of such appointment
was grossly illegal and arbitrary.
18. In the case of Manoj Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
has made following observations:
"11. Analysis : The standard argument made
consistently and successfully before the Single
Judge and Division Bench must fail before us.
Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular do
nothing more than reserving flexibility in the
selection process. They cannot be rad to invest
the Institute with unbridled discretion to pick and
choose candidates by supplying new criteria to
the prescribed qualification. This is a classic case
of arbitrary action. The submission based on
Clauses 14 and 19 must fail here and now."
20 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
Further, at the cost of repetition, observation fo the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra)
can be reproduced as below :
"18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the
power of judicial review may not be exercised
unless the administrative decision is illogical or
suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks
the conscience of the court in the sense that it is
in defiance of logic or moral standards but no
standardised formula, universally applicable to
all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be
considered on its own facts, depending upon the
authority that exercises the power, the source,
the nature or scope of power and the indelible
effects it generates in the operation of law or
affects the individual or society. Though judicial
restraint, albeit self recognised, is the order fo
the day, yet an administrative decision or action
which is based on wholly irrelevant
considerations or material; or excludes from
consideration the relevant material; or it is so
absurd that no reasonable person could have
arrived at it on the given material, may be struck
down. In other words, when a Court is satisfied
that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and
its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the
Court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that
21 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
the scope of judicial review is limited to the
deficiency in the decision-making process and
not the decision."
19. Further, the learned Tribunal has also relied upon the
judgment in the case of Asha Sharma (supra), wherein it is clearly
observed that judicial intervention is very much required when any
order passed without assigning any reason and arbitrarily.
20. If the instant case is scrutinized by applying instances of
arbitrariness as mentioned above, then it appears that though
under Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 the places of
postings of 23 Deputy RTOs Group-A were determined, but not
implemented immediately due to Code of Conduct. Further, it is
evident that when the Code of Conduct was over, the remaining
officers were given postings on 06/06/2024 and just six or seven
days thereafter the postings of the petitioner - Archana and the
respondent - Shyam Lohi, were interchanged under the
Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024. It is highly
inexplicable that even after considering her representations till
28/02/2024, the petitioner - Archana was posted at Chandrapur
under the Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 and then
what was the special occasion for the Competent Authority of the
22 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
State to change her posting from Chandrapur to Pune by sending
the respondent - Shyam Lohi to Chandrapur. Moreover, the
Competent Authority has also not given a single line reason for
effecting such modification in the Government Resolution dated
13/06/2024. Therefore, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in respect of arbitrariness as mentioned above, are squarely
applicable to the present case also as the Competent Authority of
the State has miserably failed to assign any reason as to why they
caused modification of the Government Resolution dated
16/03/2024 by interchanging the places of postings of the
petitioner - Archana and the respondent - Shyam Lohi by issuing
another Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024. The learned
Tribunal has therefore, rightly observed that there was requirement
of judicial review in respect of impugned Government Resolution
dated 13/06/2024. Considering all these aspects, we find no
reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed and
disposed of. Rule stands discharged accordingly. Interim relief if
granted earlier, shall stand vacated.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) (S. G. MEHARE, J.)
23 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
21. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned senior
counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde requested for stay of execution of the
judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for
respondent No.1 Mr. Deshmukh strongly opposed the request made
by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the ground that
respondent No.1 has not joined the posting at Chandrapur.
Further, he pointed out that this court did not stay the effect of
judgment of the learned Tribunal. However, it is not disputed that
the petitioner - Archana has already taken charge of her posting at
Pune on 14/06/2024. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the
learned Tribunal after passing the judgment had stayed the same
to enable the petitioner - Archana to challenge the same. The
learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde submits that he would challenge
the judgment passed by this court before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh for respondent submits that
due to order dated 12/08/2024 of this court for maintaining status
on that day, respondent No.1 could not join and he is without
salary since last nine months.
22. Considering the fact that the learned Tribunal had stayed its
own order and also considering the fact that the petitioner -
Archana has already joined her posting at Pune, the stay granted
24 Judgment in wp 8511-24 & 9474-24
by the learned Tribunal, is extended for further period of four
weeks. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) (S. G. MEHARE, J.)
VS Maind/-
