Petitioners sought mutual transfer within the same Taluka against government policy prohibiting such transfers. Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of substance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
954 sr. no..odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5749 OF 2016
TANAJI BALIRAM BANSODE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Shrikant T. Veer AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S.S. Dande. Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. P.P. More,
. . .
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 25TH OCTOBER, 2016.
PER COURT:
Policy framed by the respondents for facilitating mutual transfer of the employees does not permit transfer within the same Taluka. Petitioners are praying for issuance of directions to consider their joint application for mutual transfer within the same Taluka.
2] Since the request made is in violation of the policy prescribed by the Government, same cannot be considered. Writ petition being devoid of substance stands dismissed.
[K.K.SONAWANE] [R.M. BORDE] JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ petition can be considered where request is in violation of prescribed government policy.
Tanaji Baliram Bansode and Another
State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
