Petitioner seeks inter-district transfer rejected due to vacant post unavailability. Court expresses concern over alleged discriminatory treatment and cost implications if petitioner fails to prove legal entitlement or deliberate discrimination, adjourning for verification.
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.
946-wp-13471-2024.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13471 OF 2024
Varsha Shivnath Khedkar VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K.D. Pote h/f Mr. Arvind Gopalrao Ambetkar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 10, 2024
PER COURT:-
946-wp-13471-2024.odt (2)
reveals that since the post to which the petitioner belongs are not vacant. Hence, she could not be accommodated.
a deliberate discrimination, the Court would impose a heavy cost.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S.G. MEHARE, J.)
Mujaheed//
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to inter-district transfer under the couple convenience policy.
Whether there was deliberate discrimination in non-accodmation of the transfer request.
Whether identical orders to the petitioner have been passed to other candidates without mutual consent.
Varsha Shivnath Khedkar
The State Of Maharashtra
S.G. MEHARE
SHAILESH P. BRAHME
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
