Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSversusBHAUSAHEB VITTHAL BHOGADE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The challenge to the Government Resolution fails; the writ petitions are dismissed and transfer orders may be issued only in administrative exigencies or exceptional circumstances after the cut‑off date.
Summary
A group of petitioners challenged the Government Resolution dated 15‑03‑2024 that introduced a new staffing pattern, alleging it violated Section 25 and the Schedule of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21‑A of the Constitution, as interpreted in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India. The High Court had earlier granted interim relief but on 14‑11‑2025 dismissed the writ petitions, directing that transfer orders not be issued after the cut‑off date except in administrative exigencies or exceptional circumstances. The petitioners argued that the earlier decision was under challenge before the Supreme Court, but no stay was in place. The present bench affirmed the earlier judgment, held that the challenge fails, dismissed the writ petitions and disposed the related civil applications, reiterating the restriction on post‑cut‑off transfer orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolution of 15‑03‑2024 contravenes Section 25 and the Schedule of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21‑A of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court's earlier dismissal of the writ petitions remains effective pending a Supreme Court challenge.
- Whether transfer orders may be issued after the cut‑off date prescribed in the transfer policy.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Right to Education
- Section 25
- Transfer policy
- Administrative exigency
- Writ petition
- High Court
- Supreme Court challenge
- Article 21-A
- Education staffing
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38373-DB
1 903-CA-9450-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6539 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9450 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5666 OF 2026
IN WP/6539/2025
BHAUSAHEB VITTHAL BHOGADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6733 OF 2025
VINAYAK BABANRAO KSHIRSAGAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6582 OF 2025
MADHAV BHAGWANT LANDGE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6938 OF 2025
SWA. SUDAM PINGALE MEMORIAL TRUST, DHULE THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Sarthak Gaikar, Advocate h/f Mr. Pralhad D. Bachate, Advocate
for the Petitioner
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6944 OF 2025
ASHRAM SHALA SANTSHA CHALAK SANGH MAHARASHTRA STATE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
SVH
2 903-CA-9450-26.odt
Mr. Majit S. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6543 OF 2025
BALU PRABHU DUDHADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6533 OF 2025
SHRI. SUDAM VIKRAMRAO GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. Sambhaji G. Munde, Advocate for the Petitioners
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6541 OF 2025
SUDAM SAKHARAM DALAVI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. A. G. Ambetkar, Advocate for the Petitioners in All WPs
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :
1. In all these writ petitions, Government Resolution dated
15/03/2024 (Clause 1.1 to 6.1) in respect of new Sanch Manyata /
staffing pattern introduced by the respondent – State is challenged,
being contrary to Section 25 and its Schedule of Right of Children to
SVH
3 903-CA-9450-26.odt
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21-A of the
Constitution of India as well as observations of the Supreme Court in
case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India, reported in
[2021 (17) SCC 1].
2. By order dated 16/05/2025, passed by this Court
[Coram: Arun R. Pedneker, J.] in Writ Petition No.6539 of 2025 and
connected matters, the Vacation Court has granted interim relief to
the similarly circumstanced petitioners by relying upon the order
dated 23/04/2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5456 of
2025. Similar such relief was granted from time to time in all such
matters.
3. This Court at Principal Seat finally decided Writ Petition
No.5456 of 2025 and connected writ petitions by a detailed order
dated 14/11/2025. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“34. In view of the foregoing discussions, the
following order is passed:
(i) …
(ii) …
(iii)The challenge laid to the G.R.-2024 fails and the writ
petitions vide Writ Petition Nos.5456 of 2025, 6028 of
2025, 7548 of 2025, 7552 of 2025, 8239 of 2025, 8753
of 2025, 8946 of 2025, 9977 of 2025, 10213 of 2025,
10432 of 2025, 10433 of 2025, 10470 of 2025, 10497 of
2025, 5759 of 2025, 6213 of 2025, 10321 of 2025, Writ
Petition (St.) Nos.15761 of 2025, 15782 of 2025, 13145
of 2025, 16603 of 2025 and Writ Petition (L) No.17362 of
2025 are dismissed. However, we observe that the
respondent-Authorities shall not issue transfer orders
after the cut-off date provided under the transfer policy,
except in the administrative exigencies or under
exceptional circumstances.”
SVH
4 903-CA-9450-26.odt
4. Learned advocate for petitioners fairly agreed that the
issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the said
decision. He pointed out that this decision is challenged before the
Apex Court and notices are issued in the applications seeking
condonation of delay in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s).33790/2026. Fact remains that there is no stay granted to the
decision of the Principal Seat.
5. For the reasons stated in the said decision, the writ
petitions are dismissed. Respondent authorities shall not issue
transfer orders after the cut-off date provided under the transfer
policy, except in the administrative exigencies or under exceptional
circumstances.
6. Accordingly, the pending civil applications also stand
disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…