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 was mentioned the day before yesterday. The Petitioner before us is 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 IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.06.22 19:03:00 +0530 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 11th 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 11th 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