JUDGMENT : Naresh Patil, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 18th April 2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1151/2012. The petitioner was working as Associate Professor in Bhausaheb Hire Government College, Dhule. On promotion he was posted as Professor in Grant Medical College, Mumbai by order dated 30th June 2012 in the place of respondent No.3Dr. M.M.Kura who was transferred to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College, Dhule. It is alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty by the Dean of the Grant Medical College, Mumbai. By order dated 4th December 2012, the petitioner was posted as Professor at Government Medical College, Aurangabad. The transfer order of respondent No.3Dr. Kura from Grant Medical College to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College was cancelled. The petitioner was aggrieved by the same and hence he approached the Tribunal. The petitioner was relieved on 2nd July 2012 whereas it is the case of respondent No.3Dr. Kura that he was not relieved from Grant Medical College. According to the petitioner, he reported for his duties on 4th July 2012 by filing his joining report. On 28th June 2012, a representation was made by respondent No.3Dr. Kura addressed to the Hon'ble Minister, Medial Education and Horticulture, wherein Dr.Kura has stated in last para as under: “Given to understand of the likely possibilities of routine transfers of postings for the academic year 2012 still under consideration to date which includes me I wish to let you know that as my children's schools have started from the 15th June and it is already 28th June 2012 as of today and my elder daughter is in 10th standard this year I request that I may be permitted and considered to be retained in the present position till the completion of the forthcoming academic year with due respect to the educational needs of my children in addition to the above mentioned needs and status of the department as important priority issues. Kindly consider my request with all due respects for the administrative needs and decisions for better medical education.” 2. Kindly consider my request with all due respects for the administrative needs and decisions for better medical education.” 2. The State Government issued G.R. dated 4th December 2012 by which, for administrative reasons, the decision to transfer Dr.Kura from Grant Medical College to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College was cancelled and the petitioner was transferred to the Government Medical College at Aurangabad as Professor. By communication dated 5th July 2012, respondent No.3Dr. Kura informed the Dean, Grant Medical College to cancel his transfer to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College, Dhule and continue him in the same posting in the Grant Medical College on account of certain reasons mentioned in the said communication. By communication dated 5th July 2012, the Dean, Grant Medical College recommended the Secretary, Health Eduction, Mantralaya that the transfer of Dr.Kura be cancelled. One of the surprising revelations, which was noticed during the course of hearing of the petition, is that though the petitioner could not join the transferred post in Grant Medical College, he is said to be in Mumbai but without any posting and without discharging any official duties. The petitioner did not join his promotional, transferred post at Aurangabad. At the same time respondent No.3Dr. Kura also did not leave his existing post and he continues to discharge his duties in the same posting. A secretarial note in respect of this controversy annexed at page139140 shows an endorsement that the petitioner be allowed to resume his duty which seems to have been approved at the higher level. It is submitted that later on, on recommendations of Hon'ble Minister for Revenue dated 4th July 2012 the transfer of Dr.Kura was stayed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It further transpires that the case of the petitioner was also recommended by the Member of Legislative Assembly. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 exerted political pressure to get his transfer cancelled. He has been occupying the present post in the Grant Medical College since last 17 years and in spite of there being a law in respect of transfer of government employees, respondent No.3 has been successful in retaining his post in Grant Medical College by remaining in the city of Mumbai. He has been occupying the present post in the Grant Medical College since last 17 years and in spite of there being a law in respect of transfer of government employees, respondent No.3 has been successful in retaining his post in Grant Medical College by remaining in the city of Mumbai. The provisions of section 5 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (“Act of 2005” for short) have been violated. Without any justifiable reasons the transfer of respondent No.3 was cancelled. Leaned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the State authorities are now giving explanation that respondent No.3 was engaged in important projects and he has done excellent work and, therefore, his presence was very much needed in the Grant Medical College and till the project is completed his presence is necessary in the said college. These reasons, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are pressed into service to cover up the undeserving leniency shown to respondent No.3Dr. Kura. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that earlier Dr.Kura was transferred to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College, Dhule but on his representation and considering the fact that he was engaged in a project, his transfer order was cancelled. He was not relieved from the Grant Medial College, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner to join the post of Dr.Kura in the Grant Medical College. Learned Government Pleader submits that the allegation that Dr.Kura is occupying the post in Grant Medical College since last 17 years is required to be looked into considering the fact that when the Act of 2005 was passed he was serving in Grant Medical College for near about 8 years. Reliance was placed on provisions of section 5(1) (b) and (c) of the Act of 2005. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner was promoted and posted at Aurangabad, therefore, there should not be any difficulty for him to join the promotional post. In the submission of the Government Pleader, in fact, the petitioner has challenged his promotional order and posting at Aurangabad. Considering the difficulties expressed by Dr.Kura and the fact that it was a midterm transfer, the State Government at the highest level after considering all the necessary facts and circumstances cancelled the transfer order of Dr.Kura. 5. In the submission of the Government Pleader, in fact, the petitioner has challenged his promotional order and posting at Aurangabad. Considering the difficulties expressed by Dr.Kura and the fact that it was a midterm transfer, the State Government at the highest level after considering all the necessary facts and circumstances cancelled the transfer order of Dr.Kura. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3Dr. Kura submitted that respondent No.3 is engaged in some projects. His children were taking education and, therefore, representation was made by him. He was guide to some students as such his presence was required in Grant Medical College. The Dean of Grant Medical College was convinced about the representation and, accordingly, his case was put up before the highest authority of the State. Considering the fact that his presence in the Grant Medical College was necessary the highest authority of the State interfered with the matter. He further submitted that respondent No.3 is a recognised PHD guide and considering the qualification and voluminous work discharged by him, his case was sympathetically considered. In his submission, there is no illegality in the order passed by the State Government. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ganpat v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 180 . 6. We have perused the record and the reasonings adopted by the Tribunal as also the provisions of the Act of 2005. It is necessary to incorporate relevant provisions of the Act of 2005. Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act read as under: Section 4 – Tenure of transfer. (1) No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred unless he has completed his tenure of posting as provided in section 3. (2) The competent authority shall prepare every year in the month of January, a list of Government servants due for transfer, in the month of April and May in the year. (1) No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred unless he has completed his tenure of posting as provided in section 3. (2) The competent authority shall prepare every year in the month of January, a list of Government servants due for transfer, in the month of April and May in the year. (3) Transfer list prepared by the respective competent authority under subsection (2) for Group A Officers specified in entries (a) and (b) of the table under section 6 shall be finalized by the Chief Minister or the concerned Minister, as the case may be, in consultation with the Chief Secretary or concerned Secretary of the Department, as the case may be : Provided that, any dispute in the matter of such transfers shall be decided by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Secretary. (4) The transfers of Government servants shall ordinarily be made only once in a year in the month of April or May: Provided that, transfer may be made any time in the year in the circumstances as specified below, namely :- (i) to the newly created post or to the posts which become vacant due to retirement, promotion, resignation, reversion, reinstatement, consequential vacancy on account of transfer or on return from leave; (ii) where the competent authority is satisfied that the transfer is essential due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons, after recording the same in writing and with the prior approval of the next higher authority. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or this section, the competent authority may, in special cases, after recording reasons in writing and with the prior permission of the immediately preceding Competent Transferring Authority mentioned in the table of section 6, transfer a Government servant before completion of his tenure of post. Section 5 – Extension of tenure.- (1) The tenure of posting of a Government servant or employee laid down in section 3 may be extended in exceptional cases as specified below, namely : (a) the employee due for transfer after completion of tenure at a station of posting or post has less than one year for retirement; (b) the employee possesses special technical qualifications or experience for the particular job and a suitable replacement is not immediately available; and (c) the employee is working on a project that is in the last stage of completion, and his withdrawal will seriously jeopardise its timely completion. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or any other provisions of this Act, to ensure that the Government work is not adversely affected on account of large scale transfers of Government servants from one single Department or office, not more than thirty per cent. of the employees shall be transferred from any office or Department at a time, in a year. 7. The Act of 2005 was legislated to regulate transfers of the government servants and to prevent delay in discharging of official duties. Normally, the government servants are transferred in the month of April or May unless the transfer is essentially due to extraneous circumstances. The law provides tenure of three years to government servants at one place. But there could be extension of the said period in exceptional cases which are enumerated under the provisions of section 5. 8. In the facts as placed on record before this Court, the issue which is to be addressed by this Court falls in a narrow compass. The Government and its authorities are required to follow the provisions of the Act of 2005 and exercise their discretion in accordance with the facts. The government resolution dated 30th June 2012 mentions that respondent No.3Dr. Kura was transferred to Bhausaheb Hire Government College, Dhule on administrative ground and in accordance with section 4(4)(ii) and section 5 of the Act of 2005. It was also ordered that he shall be relieved immediately. It indicates that the said government resolution was issued in the name and order of Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra. The question is as to how the situation thereafter took a turn which persuaded the State Government to cancel the order of transfer of respondent No.3 and transfer the petitioner on promotion from Mumbai to Aurangabad. Considering in its entirety, we express our displeasure in respect of the manner in which the State Government dealt with the issue of transfer of responsible medical officers/ professors attached to the government medical colleges. We notice that in the representation made by respondent No.3Dr. Kura to the Hon'ble Minister, Health Education and Horticulture, the respondent No.3 contended that his elder daughter was studying in 10th standard and requested that he may be permitted and considered to be retained in his present posting till the completion of the forthcoming academic year. This representation was made on 28th June 2012. Kura to the Hon'ble Minister, Health Education and Horticulture, the respondent No.3 contended that his elder daughter was studying in 10th standard and requested that he may be permitted and considered to be retained in his present posting till the completion of the forthcoming academic year. This representation was made on 28th June 2012. One year had already elapsed after the submission of this representation, but still the Government and respondent No.3Dr. Kura maintain the stand that he may be retained in Mumbai on the ground that he was involved in some projects and acting as Guide to the students who are doing PHD and, therefore, his presence in the Grant Medial College is essential in the larger interest of public. Prima facie we are not fully convinced on the explanation given by the State and respondent No.3Dr. Kura for refusing to leave Grant Medical College or for retaining him in the posting in Grant Medical College. It is further surprising to note that without any work being assigned, the petitioner, since the date of his transfer i.e. from the month of July 2012 to July 2014, is said to be not discharging any work. He is simply said to be staying in Mumbai. We are not given any convincing data as to whether the petitioner was given some alternate posting in Mumbai or whether he was discharging his duties as Professor. In other words, the State Government was and is fully aware that the petitioner was without duty for last two years. In spite of this fact it is really surprising to note that the State and its responsible authorities maintained complete silence by closing their eyes on these developments. During the course of hearing it was informed by learned Government Pleader that now the State Government is proposing to issue notice to the petitioner and take some action against the petitioner. The question is why the State was not diligent in taking prompt action in this regard when they were aware that the petitioner is simply not discharging his duties anywhere. This seriously reflects on the efficiency of the administration at the highest level. The question remains as to what shall be the outcome of this situation. The State shall deal with the issue departmentally. 9. This seriously reflects on the efficiency of the administration at the highest level. The question remains as to what shall be the outcome of this situation. The State shall deal with the issue departmentally. 9. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner was not prejudiced as he was posted on promotion at Aurangabad and respondent No.3 had done excellent work in the Grant Medical College in J.J.Group of Hospitals, Mumbai. 10. The State shall make every endeavor to discourage the government servants, more particularly, the persons with such high qualification holding important posts from exerting political pressure or seeking political patronage in routine matters of transfer. The highest authority in the State Government, in accordance with law, in a given case for exceptional reasons may exercise the power conferred by section 4(5) OF THE Act of 2005. Strictly speaking, we do not find any such element apparent in the facts of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the view adopted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Act of 2005. 11. In the light of peculiar facts emerging from this case, we are of the considered view that the employees of the government are expected to follow discipline and abide by orders of transfer issued to them, Professionals like doctors involved in this case are, therefore, expected to join at their places of transfer instead of involving Ministers or Members of Legislative Assembly to interject with their transfer orders. It is in these circumstances, that we direct the petitioner to join on his promotional post at place of transfer in the Government Medical College at Aurangabad. Similarly, respondent No.3 shall join at his place of transfer in Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College at Dhule. The respondent-State is at liberty to appoint a suitable and competent person in place of respondent No.3 in Grant Medical College at Mumbai. These directions shall be complied with within four weeks from today. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.