Bombay High Court
SAYAJI VISHNU CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THR THE SECRETARY, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEP AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the petitioner must make an application to the competent authority under the 2014 Government Resolution for any exemption based on age or medical condition.
Summary
The petitioner, a 56‑year‑old driver employed by the Zilla Parishad Health Department, was transferred in March 2026 from Savarde to Panchayat Samiti, Bhudargad, a distance of about 100 km. He claimed that, under clause 3¼(k) of the Government Resolution dated 15 May 2014, his age made him eligible for exemption from such a transfer and also relied on a medical certificate indicating severe lumbar spondylosis. The Court observed that the exemption provision is procedural and requires the petitioner to file an application with the competent authority; no mala fides in the transfer was shown. The medical certificate, while evidencing a health issue, does not automatically render the petitioner unfit for his duties as a driver. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the exemption through the prescribed administrative process.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from the transfer under clause 3¼(k) of the 2014 Government Resolution on the basis of age exceeding 53 years.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain exemption on medical grounds without first filing an application under the said resolution.
- Whether the court can set aside the transfer order in the absence of any allegation of mala fides.
Subjects
- transfer order
- exemption clause
- age factor
- medical certificate
- government resolution
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
4-WP-2190-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2190 OF 2026
Sayaji Vishnu Chavan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary, Village Development
And Panchayat Raj Dep And Ors.
Ms. Ketaki Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the State
Mr. Kedar Lad a/w Ms. Indrayani Patil a/w Ms. Poonam Dhotre,
advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026
P. C. :
1. Heard Ms. Ketaki Patil, learned advocate for the Petitioner.
The present Writ Petition was posted for final disposal today after it
IRESH
MASHAL
was mentioned the day before yesterday. The Petitioner before us is
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
MASHAL
Date:
2026.06.22
19:03:00
+0530
an employee as a driver in the Health Department of Zilla Parishad,
Kolhapur, and presently attached to the Primary Health Centre,
Savarde, Tal: Hatkanangale, Dist: Kolhapur since the year 2005. In
the month of March 2026, he was transferred in the normal course
in terms of the applicable Government Resolution. That transfer
1 of 4
4-WP-2190-2026 (C).doc
order is appended at Exhibit ‘A’ Page 13. It is a transfer order with
regard to 13 employees of the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur.
2. Ms. Patil, learned advocate for the Petitioner would
vehemently persuade the Court to consider the fact that the
Petitioner is 56 years old and he has been transferred from Savarde,
Tal: Hatkanangale to Pachayat Samiti, Bhudargad which is 100 Kms
away. At the outset, she would submit that the Petitioner is
victimized because other transfers are within very close range.
However, we do not have that data before us and in any event, on
reading Exhibit ‘A’, we do not agree with the submissions made by
Ms. Patil.
3. Ms. Patil would draw our attention to the impugned
Government Resolution dated 15th May 2014 under which the said
transfer has been effected. She would submit that if clause 3¼[k½ is
perused, the Petitioner being more than 53 years old, would be
entitled and eligible to seek exemption. We have perused clause
3¼[k½ and prima facie agree with the submission made by Ms. Patil;
however, what we find is that, if the Petitioner is seeking an
exemption under such a provision, then his case cannot be
considered by us in the present Writ Petition as there is no mala
2 of 4
4-WP-2190-2026 (C).doc
fides involved whatsoever. The Petitioner under clause 3¼x½ then
needs to make an appropriate application to the concerned
Competent Authority in that regard for consideration on the
available grounds. In the present case, it is seen that the Petitioner’s
transfer was effected on 10th March 2026; however, Petitioner on
11th March 2026 has obtained a medical certificate from Kudalkar
Hospital, which is run by Dr. Mrs. Smita Suraj Kudalkar, M.B.B.S.,
M.D.(MED) and Dr. Mr. Suraj Vilas Kudalkar, M.B.B.S., D. Ortho,
certifying that the Petitioner has been examined on 11 th March 2026
for severe lumbar spondylosis. The said certificate reads that he has
been operated for Hernia and there is severe pain in the lumbar
region, and he is advised to avoid long travelling. The said
certificate is heavily relied upon by Ms. Patil in support of the
Petitioner’s case to show medical exigency. Such certificate, prima
facie, does not inspire confidence of this Court at all. Petitioner is a
driver and if such reason is countenanced, then he will be unfit for
his duty as driver.
4. Be that as it may, the Petitioner is well within his right to
make an application to the concerned Authority under the said
Government Resolution, if at all he seeks any exemption on account
3 of 4
4-WP-2190-2026 (C).doc
of his age factor or any ailment. He has not done so. However, we
find that the Petitioner has been on medical leave since 11 th March
2026. In that view of the matter, the bonafides of the Petitioner are
not appreciated by the Court at all. However, this may not be
construed as the Court holding anything against the Petitioner. The
Petitioner, if so, is within his right to make an appropriate
application under the said Government Resolution on account of his
age and can approach the Authority in accordance with law. If he so
approaches, the Authority can decide such application in accordance
with law.
5. Writ Petition is dismissed.
6. All contentions of the Petitioner are kept open. We clarify that
we have not considered the Petitioner’s case for transfer.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
Iresh
4 of 4
Checking your session…