Meena Laxman Sidam vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8539 Bom

                                   1                                 wp 7027.2021

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                47 WRIT PETITION NO.7027 OF 2021
                   MEENA LAXMAN SIDAM
                          VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                           ...
   Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Nagargoje Ankush N.
      AGP for Respondents No.1&2: Mr. P. S. Patil
   Advocate for Respondents No.3&4: Mr. S. K. Chavan
                           ...
                               CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                      M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE: 28th JUNE, 2021 PER COURT:

1. The proposal seeking approval to the transfer

of the petitioner from unaided to aided division

is granted on 40% grant-in-aid.

2. Mr. Nagargoje, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that it ought to have been

granted on 100% grant-in-aid.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was

appointed on unaided division on 28.03.2013. The

appointment is approved by the Education Officer

under it's order dated 14.08.2013. Thereafter,

permanent approval is also granted to the

petitioner on unaided post under approval order

2 wp 7027.2021

dated 03.01.2018. upon vacancies being created on

retirement of one Mr. Ramesh Khushalsing Rathod

The petitioner considering the seniority was

transferred to the aided post on 01.08.2020.

4. We have heard the learned A.G.P. also.

5. It appears from the approval orders placed on

record that the petitioner has worked for almost

6½ years on the unaided post before being

transferred to the aided post. The transfer of the

petitioner on aided post is approved by the

Education Officer but only on 40% grant-in-aid

purportedly relying upon the Circular

dated 28.06.2016.

6. We have under our Judgment and Order dated

04.07.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1493 of 2018 with

connected writ petitions observed that some of the

clauses of the Circular dated 28.06.2016 do not

apply. We had observed that, if, the candidate has

worked for more than 3 years on unaided post and

if he / she is transferred on 100% grant-in-aid

3 wp 7027.2021

post, then the approval ought to be on 100% grant-

in-aid post. Of course, the Education Officer has

to consider the seniority, the roster, the

qualification and all other aspects.

7. The Education Officer has granted approval to

the transfer of the petitioner, meaning thereby,

the Education Officer is satisfied with all other

aspects of qualification, roster, seniority.

8. In light of that, the impugned order to the

extent of granting approval on 40% grant-in-aid is

quashed and set aside. The Education Officer shall

re-consider the said proposal and if he is

satisfied that the transfer of the petitioner was

on 100% grant-in-aid post, then the approval ought

to be granted on 100% grant-in-aid. The same shall

be done preferably within a period of four (04)

months.

9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No

costs.

[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe