Bombay High Court
Anand Sikandar Gangne vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 26 July, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
73WP5000
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
73 WRIT PETITION NO. 5000 OF 2021
ANAND SIKANDAR GANGNE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar.
AGP for Respondents : Mr. A.S. Shinde.
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P.R. Tandale.
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Amol Vasmatkar.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 26.07.2021
PER COURT :
We have heard Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Advcoate for the
petitioner and Mr. Tandale, learned Advocate for the respondent.
2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an assistant
teacher on an unaided post on 15.06.2012. The appointment of the
petitioner on unaided post is approved under the order dated
31.12.2014 by the Education Officer. On 14.07.2020, the petitioner
is transferred to the aided post. The proposal submitted for approval
to the transfer of the petitioner from unaided to aided post is rejected.
The same is rejected basically on the ground that there are surplus
teachers available.
73WP5000
3. Mr. Tandale, the learned counsel relies upon the circular dated
28.06.2016 and submits that the petitioner has not followed the
procedure envisaged under Section 5 of the MEPS Act.
4. We have, under our judgment and order dated 04.07.2019 in
Writ Petition No. 1493/2018 with connected Writ Petitions, observed
that the Management / employer has the powers to transfer the
employee from unaided to aided division under Rule 41 of the MEPS
Rules and some of the clauses of circular dated 28.06.2016 are
erroneous.
5. The Education Officer naturally is required to consider the
seniority, roaster and the qualification of the petitioner before
passing the order of approval to the transfer from unaided to aided
post. However, if the petitioner is senior and as per the roaster the
post is available so also the petitioner possesses the requisite
qualification, then, only on the ground that there are surplus teachers
available the proposal for approval cannot be rejected.
6. In the light of that the impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The Education Officer (Primary) shall reconsider the proposal
seeking approval to the transfer of the petitioner from unaided to
73WP5000
aided post in tune with the judgment and order of this Court dated
04.07.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1493/2018 with connected Writ
Petitions. The said proposal shall be decided expeditiously,
preferably within four months.
7. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
( R.N. LADDHA, J. ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )
S.P.C.
