[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Lok Shikshan Sanstha, Thr. President, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy. Dept. ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5112-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5730 OF 2025
1) Lok Shikshan Sanstha, Kingaonraja,
Tq. Shindkhedraja, Dist. Buldhana,
through its President.
2) Nutun Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kingaonraja,
Tq. Shindkhedraja, Dist. Buldhana,
through its Headmaster.
3) Siddheshwar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Hatta, Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli,
through its Headmaster.
4) Suresh Yatiram Kangale,
Aged about 45 years, Occu. Service,
C/o. At Post Hatta,
Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli. .... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Department of Education
and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
District - Buldhana.
3) The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. D. Karode, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for
the Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment 2 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 05.03.2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 01.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by
consent and request of the parties.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the
order dated 09.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2- Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. The Petitioners
are further seeking directions to Respondent No.2 to decide the
proposal dated 01.01.2025, submitted by the Petitioners for
grant approval to the transfer of Petitioner No. 4 from partially
aided division (40% grant-in-aid) to aided division (100% grant-
in-aid) i.e., from Petitioner No. 3 School to Petitioner No. 2
School along with all consequential benefits of service.
3. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.4 was appointed
on the post of Junior Clerk in the Petitioner No.3 School, run by
Petitioner No.1 Society, on no grant-in-aid basis, vide
appointment order dated 28.06.2004, thereafter the said school
Judgment 3 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
started receiving 40% of grant-in-aid. That, after the
superannuation of one Subhash Vinayak Jadhav, who was
working as Senior Clerk on 100% grant-in-aid basis in Petitioner
No. 2 School, the Petitioner No. 4 came to be promoted and
transferred to the said post as per the provisions of Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules,
1981 (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules).
4. It is further submitted that the Headmaster of the
Petitioner No. 3 School relieved the Petitioner No. 4 and
accordingly the proposal dated 06.01.2024 for grant of approval
to the transfer came to be forwarded to the Respondent No. 2
Education Officer. However, the Respondent No. 2 rejected the
said proposal vide its order dated 27.02.2024 on the ground that
vide Government Resolution dated 01.12.2022 the State
Government has imposed ban on such transfer.
5. It is pertinent to note here that, this Court in Writ
Petition No. 8215/2022 has set aside the Government
Resolution dated 01.12.2022. Owing to this, the Petitioner No. 4
again forwarded the proposal to Respondent No.2 vide a letter
dated 22.04.2024. However, again the proposal of the Petitioner
Judgment 4 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
No. 4 came to be rejected by the Respondent No. 2, vide its
order dated 21.08.2024, on the ground that the relevant posts
are not available.
6. Subsequently, the Petitioner No. 4 pointed out that
the relevant posts are available and further requested the
Respondent No. 2 to consider the proposal of the Petitioner
No. 4. However, the Respondent No. 2, vide its impugned order
dated 09.06.2025, directed the Petitioner No. 4 to submit the
proposal to the State Government as per the provisions of
Government Resolution dated 29.04.2024. Aggrieved by this,
the Petitioners have filed the present petition.
7. The Petitioners have relied on the judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition No. 5862/2024 (Friends Social Circle,
Akola vs. State of Maharashtra), dated 08.04.2025, wherein this
Court has set aside the clause No. 2 of the Government
Resolution dated 29.04.2024.
8. The Learned Council for Petitioners have relied on
following citations in support of their claim:
Judgment 5 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
(i) Writ Petition No. 2113/2021, Shahbabu Education
Society, Patur and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra & another, dated 05/10/2023;
(ii) Rahul Prakash Nilgar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4558 and
(iii) Friends Social Circle Akola vs. State of Maharashtra,
2025(3) Mh.L.J. 279.
9. Per Contra, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Respondent made oral submissions opposing the
present petition.
10. Heard the submissions of both parties at length,
examined the documents filed on record and considered the
authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners.
11. There is no dispute that the Petition No.4 - Suresh
Kangale came to be appointed on 28.06.2004 as a Junior Clerk
and the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli also granted
approval on no grant-in-basis. The Petitioner No.3 School started
receiving 20% grant-in-aid and thereafter 40% grant-in-aid on
22.11.2024 and the Management vide a Resolution,
unanimously resolved to transfer the services of the Petitioner
No.4 from Petitioner No.3 School to Petitioner No.2 School i.e.
Judgment 6 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
from partially aided to 100% aided division, on account of
superannuation of one Senior Clerk Shri Subhash Jadhav. The
said transfer is on promotion. The headmaster relieved the
Petitioner No.4 on 06.01.2024 and the proposal for grant of
approval to the transfer of Petitioner No.4 was forwarded to the
Education Officer, which came to be rejected on 27.02.2024 on
the ground that the State Government had imposed ban on such
transfer vide Government Resolution dated 01.12.2022. The
learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on Judgment in Writ
Petition No. 8215/2022 (Friends Social Circle, Akola vs. State of
Maharashtra), dated 21.07.2023, whereby this Court set aside
the said G.R. dated 01.12.2022.
12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed
reliance on Judgment in Shahbabu Education Society, Patur
(supra), wherein this Court in para 5 held as under :
"5. As the post of Science teacher became vacant at
the petitioner no.3-School, the services of the
petitioner no.4 came to be transferred on the said
vacant post on 31.03.2020. The same was under Rule
41 of the Rules of 1981. The transfer from an un-aided
post in Junior College to an aided post in a Higher
Secondary School run by the same Management being
permissible has been held in Rahul Prakash Nilgar vs.
State of Maharashtra and another [2021 SCC Online
Judgment 7 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
Bom 4558] that was relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. After considering the
provisions of Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 alongwith Rule 41(1) of the
Rules of 1981, it was held in paragraph 13 as under:
"13. On conjoint reading of Rule 41(1) with
Section 2(24), i.e., definition of 'school', transfer
of non-teaching staff from unaided post in junior
college to aided post in higher secondary school
run by the same Management is thus
permissible, subject to the conditions prescribed
under Rule 41(1) and Rule 41(2) of the MEPS
Rules. It is not the case of the Education Officer
in the impugned order that the other conditions
prescribed under Rule 41(1) are not complied
with by the Management. In our view, the
impugned order is thus in violation of Rule 41(1)
and Rule 41(2) of the MEPS Rules and deserves
to be quashed and set aside."
It thus becomes clear that the aspect of the
institution being run on permanent no grant basis in
the present context is not very relevant."
13. The contention of the petitioners is that again a
proposal was forwarded to grant approval for transfer, however,
fresh proposal was returned on the ground that post is not
available. It is further contention of the Petitioners that on
perusal of Staffing Pattern would reveal that the post is very
much available. The Respondent No.1 State issued a Circular
dated 29.04.2024 and 03.10.2024, thereby directed all the
Judgment 8 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
Education Officer not to take any decision on the proposal
submitted for grant of approval from unaided to aided division,
however, the said circular came to be challenged before this
Court in Writ Petition No. 5862/2024 (Friends Social Circle,
Akola vs. State of Maharashtra) and this Court has set aside the
said circular by which the Divisional Director of Education,
Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education, before
whom the proposal for approval of transfer are pending be
forwarded to the State for its approval. It appears that
thereafter, there was an amendment in the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Rules) Regulation
act, 1977 in Section 41A (1)(h) on 13 th November, 2025,
thereby amending the clause by substituting words "the
Education Officer or Deputy Director, as the case may be" by
words "Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra, Pune".
14. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted
that in view of this amendment, the proposal is required to be
approved by the Commissioner (Education), State of
Maharashtra, Pune. In view of this amendment in the Act itself,
in our considered opinion, the proposal for grant of approval of
Judgment 9 J-WP No.5730.2025.odt
transfer is required now to be forwarded to Commissioner
(Education), State of Maharashtra, Pune as he has the
competent authority to decide the same. Though, there is no
such reference in the impugned order about the amendment, as
the said communication is prior to amendment of Section 41A
(1)(h). We do not see any prejudice is going to cause to the
Petitioners if the proposal for transfer is decided by the
Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra, Pune being
competent Authority in view of amendment. The amendment is
subsequent to transfer and the proposal was not sanctioned by
any competent authority till date, therefore, in view of the
amendment, the Commissioner (Education), State of
Maharashtra, Pune is the competent authority. The Petitioners
may forward the proposal for approval of transfer of Petitioner
No.4 to the Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra,
Pune. As the Petition is devoid of merit, the petition stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/04/2026 18:11:20
