SHETKARI SHIKSHAN MANDAL DHOLGARWADI THR. ITS PRESIDENT AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY SCHOOL ED. AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS.

                                                         904-WP-4058-2026.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4058 OF 2026

Shetkari Shikshan Mandal Dholgarwadi
Thr. Its President And Another                           ...Petitioners.
          Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Its Secretary School Ed.
And Sports Dept. And Others                              ...Respondents.
                              ——————
Mr. Prashand Bhavake a/w Mr. Utkarsh Desai, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for Respondents – State
Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke (through VC) a/w Mr. Gautam R. Kulkarni and
Mr. Shubham R. Vasekar, Advocates for Respondent No.4
                                 ——————
                                   Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                              Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                   Date     : August 21, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        By the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

dated 12.08.2026 passed by Respondent No.3 – Education Oicer,

interfering with the transfer order dated 31.07.2026 issued by

Petitioner No.1 – Educational Institution, transferring Respondent No.4

from Petitioner No.2 – School, and cancelling the said transfer.


2.        Briely stated, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.4 was

working in Petitioner No.2 – School as an Assistant Teacher in

Mathematics subject. There was another Assistant Teacher for

Mathematics subject employed at Petitioner No.2 – School. Petitioner


Sameer                             1 of 4
                                                       904-WP-4058-2026.doc


No.2 – School was in need of a teacher for Science subject and therefore

made a representation to Petitioner No.1 – Educational Institution to

make available an Assistant Teacher for Science subject at Petitioner

No.2 – School. On 31.05.2026, due to the retirement of the In-charge

Headmaster by way of superannuation, a vacancy of Assistant Teacher

for Mathematics subject was created at Brahmaling Vidyalaya, Hingoli,

which is the second School run by Petitioner No.1 – Management. The

Headmaster of that School made a representation on 01.07.2026 to

make available an Assistant Teacher for Mathematics subject.

Considering the administrative exigency, on 31.07.2026, transfer orders

were efected in respect of Respondent No.4 from Petitioner No.2 –

School to Brahmaling Vidyalaya and of Respondent No.5 from

Brahmaling Vidyalaya to Petitioner No.2 – School. Respondent No.5

joined Petitioner No.2 – School. However, Respondent No.4 approached

the Education Oicer and by the impugned order dated 12.08.2026, the

Education Oicer cancelled the transfer.


3.       The solitary submission of learned counsel Mr. Bhavake appearing

for the Petitioners, is with regard to the source of powers vested in the

Education Oicer to interfere with the transfer made by the

Management under Rule 41(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private

Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘the MEPS Rules’).



Sameer                            2 of 4
                                                         904-WP-4058-2026.doc


The powers are vested in the Management to efect transfer on

administrative grounds, which are set out in the transfer orders. He

submits that the Education Oicer, without giving an opportunity of

hearing, cancelled the transfer.


4.       Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Rajeshirke appearing for

Respondent No.4 submits that Respondent No.4’s proposal was

submitted for approval as Headmaster before the Education Oicer,

which was not considered. He would submit that the proposal was

submitted by rival faction. He submits that the Education Oicer should

have considered both, the proposal, as well as the complaint as regards

the transfer and taken an efective decision. He submits that

considering that Respondent No.4’s proposal is pending before the

Education Oicer, directions be given to the Education Oicer to decide

the same.


5.       Upon a query by this Court, Mr. Rajeshirke would fairly submit that

the Education Oicer did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the

transfer efected by the Management under Rule 41(1) of the MEPS

Rules. His contention is that as Respondent No.4’s proposal for approval

as Headmaster was pending before Educational Inspector, in view of the

transfer, a complaint was made by Respondent No.4. Even if that be the

position, the Education Oicer could not have unilaterally entertained


Sameer                             3 of 4
                                                     904-WP-4058-2026.doc


the complaint as regards the transfer and interfered with the same. No

power is demonstrated in the Education Oicer to adopt such a course

and to override the decision of the Management taken under Rule 41 (1)

of the MEPS Rules. Though Mr. Rajeshirke seeks directions to decide the

pending proposal by the Education Oicer, in the present, petition such

a direction cannot be given. It is open for Respondent No.4 to adopt the

remedies which are available in law.



6.       As the Education Oicer did not not have any jurisdiction to

interfere with the transfer efected by the Management, the impugned

order dated 12.08.2026 is clearly unsustainable. Resultanly, the writ

petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the

Education Oicer is hereby quashed and set aside.



 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                    [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Sameer                          4 of 4