A.V. Potdar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the judgment and order dated 24/08/2009 passed by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in original application no.674/2009 by which the application filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 27/07/2009 was dismissed.

3. At the outset, the facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as The petitioner is in the services of Maharashtra Police Services as a Deputy Commissioner of Police and was working in the Aurangabad city. According to the petitioner, he was transferred to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad City from the post of Superintendent of Police, Highway Safety, Mumbai on 03/07/2007. Due to this transfer, the headquarter of the petitioner was at Aurangabad. It is stated that the 3rd respondent who was also holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police came to be transferred from Parbhani on 15/09/2004 to the post of Asstt. Commissioner of Police in the Commissionrate of Police, Aurangabad. It is further stated that on 01/08/2006, the 3rd respondent was transferred on promotion as Superintendent of Police in Anti-Naxilite Operation, Nagpur, but the 3rd respondent got this transfer order cancelled. It is further stated that vide transfer order dated 27/10/2006, the 3rd respondent somehow got the transfer order as an Additional Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad Rural. It is alleged that meanwhile on 29/09/2008, the 3rd respondent was transferred to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police in State Intelligence Department (Headquarter), Mumbai, where he reported on 06/10/2008. It is alleged that to accommodate the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was transferred vide the disputed transfer order dated 27/07/2009 from his present posting which he had challenged before The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Vide judgment and order dated 24/08/2009, in Original Application no.674/2009, the challenge to this transfer order filed by the present petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal which order is impugned in the present writ petition for the grounds alleged in para no.44(I) to (XXIII).

4. Heard respective counsels for the parties. With the assistance of respective counsels for the parties, perused the judgment and order impugned in the present writ petition passed in Original Application No.674/2009, dated 24/08/2009.

5. At the outset to consider the submissions advanced across the bar by respective counsels for the parties, it is necessary to consider the provisions under Chapter II of The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delays in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (hereinafter will be referred as an Act of 2005 wherever required.) The Chapter II deals with the Tenures of Posting and Transfer and Transferring Authority, Section 3 : (1) For All India Service Officers and all Groups A, B and C State Government Servants or employees, the normal tenure in a post shall be three years :

Provided that, when such employee is from the non-secretariat services, in Group C, such employee shall be transferred from the post held, on his completion of two full tenures at that office or department, to another office or Department :

Provided further that, when such employee belongs to secretariat services, such employee shall not be continued in the same post for more than three years and shall not be continued in the same Department for more than two consecutive tenures.

(2) Employees in Group D shall normally not be subjected to fixed tenure. They shall not be transferred out from the station where they are serving except on request when a clear vacancy exists at the station where pos