NAGORAO SHIVAJIRAO CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:24647-DB


                                                   {1}                       wp12371-25.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    WRIT PETITION NO.12371 OF 2025

                 Nagorao Shivajirao Chavan                                   PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others                        RESPONDENTS

                                                .......
                 Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent - State
                 Ms. Preeti R. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                ....…

                              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                        DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     The Petitioner challenges order dated 8th September, 2025

                 passed in Original Application No. 584 of 2025 thereby rejecting

                 the Original Application filed by the Petitioner, challenging his

                 mid term transfer order.


                 2.     On   15th    October,   2024,    the   Petitioner   came    to   be

                 transferred from the post of Additional Civil Surgeon, Civil

                 Hospital, Beed to the post of District Civil Surgeon, Ahilyanagar.

                 The Petitioner took over the charge at Ahilyanagar on 17 th

                 October, 2024. Before the Petitioner completed his normal tenure

                 at Ahilyanagar, the Petitioner was again transferred from
                                {2}                   wp12371-25.doc

Ahilyanagar to the post of Additional Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital,

Udgir, District – Latur, by order dated 6th June, 2025.


3.    Being aggrieved by the mid term transfer, the Petitioner

preferred Original Application No. 584 of 2025 before the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short). By

the impugned order dated 8 th September, 2025, the Tribunal was

pleased to dismiss the Original Application. Hence, the present

Writ Petition.


4.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioner strenuously submitted

that, the transfer of the Petitioner is a mid term transfer and the

same is in violation of sections 3, 4 (4) (ii) and 4 (4) (5) of the

Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and

Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The

impugned order is passed without recording reasons for mid

term and mid tenure transfer. He assailed the order passed by

the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the contentions of the Petitioner in the proper

perspective. In support of the Petition, he placed reliance on the

decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition

No. 5835 of 2011 (“Purushottam Govindrao Bhagwat V/s The

State of Maharashtra”).
                               {3}                  wp12371-25.doc

5.    Learned AGP and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2,

on the other hand, supported the impugned order.


6.    Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned AGP for

the State and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 at length.

Perused the record.


7.    The Petitioner has challenged the transfer order on the

ground that no special reasons are recorded for mid term

transfer of the Petitioner.


8.    Perusal of the minutes of the CSB, prepared at the time of

issuing the transfer order, reveals that after the transfer of the

Petitioner at Ahilyanagar, the Petitioner sought extension of age

of retirement from 58 to 60. For the said relief, he approached

the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 140 of 2025. By

order dated 17th March, 2025, interim relief was granted by the

Tribunal in favour of the Petitioner and he was directed to be

continued on the said post. He was to retire on 31 st March, 2025,

on attaining the age of 58 years. Now, the Petitioner is due to

retire on 31st March, 2027.


9.    We have perused the minutes of the CSB meeting, which

are placed on record by the Petitioner. In the said minutes, the

competent transferring authority has recorded reasons i.e.
                               {4}                   wp12371-25.doc

essential nature of health services and need of serving the

patients, so also to effectively implement the schemes relating to

health, at district and taluka levels. There is urgent need to fill

up vacant posts.


10.   Learned Advocate for the Petitioner strenuously urged that

special reasons are required to be recorded for effecting mid

term transfer. According to him, these cannot be termed as

special reasons. We do not agree. We are of the view that the

above reasons recorded in the minutes of the CSB are special

reasons which necessitated the mid term transfer of the

Petitioner. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the

Petitioner that there is violation of sections 3 and 4 of the

Transfers Act, while effecting the mid term transfer of the

Petitioner.


11.   The Petitioner has relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate

bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5835 of 2011. In that

case, the Petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds,

by way of mid term transfer. Perusal of the said decision shows

that the transfer order was effected on administrative grounds

and no other ground and / or reasons were mentioned in the

same. However, in the case in hand, since reasons are recorded

in the transfer order and minutes of CSB that there is need to fill
                                {5}                   wp12371-25.doc

up vacant posts keeping in mind health services at district and

taluka levels, we are of the opinion that there is compliance of

section 4 (5) of the Transfers Act.


12.   The Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons while dismissing

the Original Application. There is no illegality or perversity in the

order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not committed

any legal or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned

order. We find no merit in the Petition. Hence, the Petition is

dismissed.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                  [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
         JUDGE                                     JUDGE

drp/wp12371-25.doc