Bombay High Court
Atul S/O Janrao Khandekar vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 5 October, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
17wp8556.2019(JUD).odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.8556 OF 2019
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8557 OF 2019
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8558 OF 2019
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8559 OF 2019
WRIT PETITION NO.8556 OF 2019
Bansilal s/o Sitran Kanoje,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Lakkadganj, Athawadi Bazar,
Murtizapur, Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola,
Having office near Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
3) Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal (Sanstha), Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur,
Distt. Akola, through its President,
4) Jayaji Maharaj Vidyalaya and Anantrao
Deshmukh Junior College,
Through its Head Master,
At Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8557 OF 2019
Ku. Neeta d/o. Ashokkumar Dabey
(name after marriage Smt. Neeta w/o Neeraj Dubey),
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Hariya Nagar, Main Road,
Murtizapur, Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2021 06:54:36 :::
17wp8556.2019(JUD).odt
2/5
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola,
Having office near Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
3) Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal (Sanstha), Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur,
Distt. Akola, through its President,
4) Jayaji Maharaj Vidyalaya and Anantrao
Deshmukh Junior College,
Through its Head Master,
At Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8558 OF 2019
Pankaj S/o Ganmesh Bhingare,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Arkhed, Post Kanzara,
Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola,
Having office near Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
3) Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal (Sanstha), Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur,
Distt. Akola, through its President,
4) Jayaji Maharaj Vidyalaya and Anantrao
Deshmukh Junior College,
Through its Head Master,
At Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8559 OF 2019
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2021 06:54:36 :::
17wp8556.2019(JUD).odt
3/5
Atul s/o Janrao Khandekar,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Tidke Nagar, Murtizapur,
Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola,
Having office near Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
3) Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal (Sanstha), Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur,
Distt. Akola, through its President,
4) Jayaji Maharaj Vidyalaya and Anantrao
Deshmukh Junior College,
Through its Head Master,
At Hirpur, Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola, .... RESPONDENTS
Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 05th OCTOBER, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER:SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matters are heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. These petitioners were initially appointed either as Shikshan
Sevak or Assistant Teachers in respondent No.4-School by
17wp8556.2019(JUD).odt
respondent No.3 on unaided post and their such appointments were
duly approved by respondent No.2-the Education Officer. When the
vacancies on the aided post of respondent No.4 school became
available, respondent No.3 transferred these petitioners from
unaided post to aided post in the same school.
4. Approval for such transfer of the petitioners from
unaided post to aided post was sought by respondent no.3 from
respondent no.2. Respondent no.2, however, refused the approval
by the impugned communication, mainly on the ground that under
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (for short the MEPS Act, 1981), no
such transfers are permissible and also on the ground that as
surplus teachers were available, the aided post could not be
internally filled up by transfer of the Shikshan Sevak/Assistant
Teachers from unaided post to aided post. The other grounds raised
in the impugned order, being formal in nature, need not be referred
to here.
5. The main ground, on which the transfer of the petitioners
from unaided post to aided post has been refused, however revolves
around the provisions made in the MEPS Act, 1981. It is well settled
law that MEPS Act, 1981 does not prohibit transfer of Shikshan
17wp8556.2019(JUD).odt
Sevak/Assistant Teacher from unaided post to aided post within the
same school or to a different school, which is run by the same
management, rather it permits transfer of teachers from one school
to another school, when both schools are run by the same
management. Therefore, it is also settled law that when the transfer
of the teachers interse schools of the same management is
permissible, the approval cannot be refused on the ground that first
vacant post must be attempted to be filled up from amongst the lot
of surplus teachers available. Therefore, in our view, the impugned
order would not stand the scrutiny of law.
6. As a matter of fact, the issue involved in these petitions is also
squarely covered by the view taken by Coordinate Bench of this
Court at Principal Seat at Mumbai in bunch of Writ Petitions starting
with Writ Petition No.5313 of 2017, decided on 25.04.2019, about
which no dispute is raised by any of the parties here.
7. In view of above, the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer
clause (i) of each of the petitions.
8. Rule Accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
nd.thawre
