Bombay High Court
Yuvraj Laxman Banpatte vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru The ... on 9 February, 2021
Bench: S.C. Gupte, Surendra Pandharinath Tavade
21.WP.3581.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3581 OF 2019
Yuvraj Laxman Banpatte ....Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Satish S. Raut for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : S. C. GUPTE AND
SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : 9 FEBRUARY 2021
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for
Respondent No.3 and learned AGP for the Respondent-State. Rule. Rule
taken up for fnal hearing by consent of counsel.
2. The subject matter of the present petition is want of approval to the
Petitioner's transfer as Assistant Teacher from unaided school to aided
school of the same institution. It is not in dispute that the requisitions made
by Respondent No.3 in relation to the proposal for approval have already
been complied with by Respondent No.4-Management. What is alleged
against the Petitioner is the Government Resolution of 28.06.2016 and in
particular sub-clause 1, 3 and 4 of Clause 3 thereof. This Court by its order
dated 25.04.2019 in the case of Miss. Devkar Dipali Kisan vs. The State
of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.5313 of 2017 and other
Digitally
Aarti signed by Aarti
G. Palkar
Aarti Palkar G. Date:
2021.02.12
Palkar 16:25:23
+0530
21.WP.3581.2019.doc
connected petitions held that these clauses of the GR do not have statutory
force. The subject matter is governed by Rule 41 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS
Rules for short) and administrative decisions of the State which run contrary
to subordinate legislation such as MEPS Rules are not valid. A number of
petitions have been accordingly disposed of by allowing transfers of
Teachers from unaided posts to aided posted under the same management
and directing the concerned Education Ofcers to grant approvals to such
transfers in response to the proposals submitted in that behalf by the
respective school managements. It is not in dispute that the facts of the
present case are clearly covered by the judgment delivered in Miss. Devkar
Dipali Kisan's (supra) case.
3. We accordingly make rule absolute and allow the petition by
quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 13.10.2017
issued by Respondent No.3 and direct Respondent No.3 to grant approval to
the transfer of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher from an unaided school
to the aided school of Respondent No.4-Management and direct
Respondent No.2 to release grant-in-aid for payment of his salary as per the
pay scale applicable to the post of Assistant Teacher together with arrears
with efect from 15.06.2017.
4. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)
Aarti Palkar 2/2
