Bombay High Court
SUBHASH SIDDHESHWAR JAGATAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO. THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Education Officer must give preference to non‑teaching staff for vacant teaching posts as mandated by the 1995 Government Resolution, rendering the rejection of the petitioner's transfer unlawful.
Summary
The petitioner, a non‑teaching staff member, filed a writ petition challenging the Education Officer's order dated 23 January 2025 that rejected his transfer to a teaching post of Assistant Teacher. The officer relied on a 1995 Government Resolution, but the petitioner argued that the resolution actually mandates preference for non‑teaching staff in such transfers. The respondent contended that despite the resolution, Schedule ‘F’ of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 had not been amended, justifying the rejection. The Court examined the submissions and held that the Education Officer is bound by the 1995 Government Resolution, which expressly provides preference to non‑teaching staff for vacant teaching posts. Consequently, the order rejecting the petitioner's transfer was deemed unsustainable and was quashed. The petition was allowed, directing the respondent to approve the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Teacher with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer was justified in rejecting the transfer proposal despite the 1995 Government Resolution granting preference to non‑teaching staff.
- Whether the lack of amendment to Schedule ‘F’ of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 affects the applicability of the resolution.
- Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable.
Subjects
- transfer
- non‑teaching staff
- teaching staff
- government resolution
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules
- writ petition
- preference
- appointment
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:9154-DB
43-WP-10458-2025(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10458 OF 2025
Subhash Siddheshwar Jagatap ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondent
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 23, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By the present petition, challenge is to the order of Education
Officer dated 23rd January, 2025, by which Petitioner’s proposal for
transfer from non-teaching staff to teaching staff as Assistant Teacher
came to be rejected. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that
the Education Officer has rejected the proposal by placing reliance on
Government Resolution of 1995.
2. Mr. Bhavake, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would
submit that Government Resolution dated 18th September 1995 would
in fact support the case of Petitioner which provides for giving priority
to the transfer of non teaching staff to the teaching post in private
schools while filling up the vacant posts.
Jamadar - SL 1 of 3
43-WP-10458-2025(C).doc
3. Per contra learned AGP would submit that Government Resolution
of 1995 though directs preference to be given to the appointment of
non teaching staff while filling up the vacant posts of teaching staff, the
impugned order records that Schedule ‘F’ of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 is not
amended.
4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
5. It is apparent that rejection of the Petitioner’s proposal is
premised on the ground that though Government Resolution dated 18 th
September 1995, states of preference to be given to non-teaching staff,
Scheduled “F” is not amended. The Education Officer is bound by the
said Government Resolution dated 18th September, 1995 which provides
preference to the non teaching staff while filling up the teaching post,
which has fallen vacant.
6. The management has sent the proposal for approval in view of
the vacancy in the post of Assistant Teacher. Without any consideration
of Government Resolution dated 18th September 1995, the Education
Officer has rejected the said proposal.
7. The impugned order rejecting the Petitioner’s proposal is clearly
unsustainable, and is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 to
grant approval to the Petitioner’s appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher with effect from 5th January, 2023 with all consequential
Jamadar - SL 2 of 3
43-WP-10458-2025(C).doc
benefits. Approval to be granted within a period of two weeks from
today.
8. The Petition is allowed in above terms.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Jamadar - SL 3 of 3
Checking your session…