Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SACHIN GORAKSHANATH KOKANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the Deputy Director of Education must consider and decide the transfer proposal within four weeks of the order.

Summary

The petitioner, a Junior College Teacher appointed by a private college, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the Deputy Director of Education to decide a proposal dated 27 November 2025 for his transfer from a non‑aided to a fully‑aided establishment. The petitioner argued that the pending decision caused prejudice, especially after a similar earlier petition was disposed of by the court in 2021. The respondents did not file any opposition. The Court found that the relief sought was limited and would not prejudice the respondents, and therefore ordered the Deputy Director to decide the proposal within four weeks, allowing parties to be heard and keeping all rights open. The petition was subsequently disposed without costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Deputy Director of Education is duty-bound to decide the transfer/appointment proposal under the petitioner's claim of prejudice.
  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing a timely decision on the proposal.
  • Whether interim relief restraining adverse action against the petitioner is warranted.

Subjects

  • Article 226
  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Transfer of Teacher
  • Aided vs Non‑Aided Establishment
  • Education Law
  • Interim Relief
  • Seniority

Judgment

                                               1 of 3                            401 - WP-4858-2026.DOC



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 4858 OF 2026

Sachin Gorakshanath Kokane                                                                 Petitioner

           versus

State Of Maharashtra Thru
Secretary and Ors                                                                      Respondents

                                _______
Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar i/by Mr. Arvind Ambetkar, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State.
                                                _______

                                    CORAM:           G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                     AARTI SATHE, JJ.

                                    DATE:            06th August, 2026

P.C.

1.              This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

          B) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions
          in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
          respondent No.3 decidethe proposal for the approval of the transfer/appointment of
          the petitioner from non aided section to fully aided section on the post "Jr.College
          Teacher" submitted by the respondentNo.4 on 27.11.2025 as Exh.-E.
          C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court
          may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking adverse action against
          the petitioners only ground that the approval of their transfer are pending before the
          respondent No.3 and issue appropriate order for the said purpose.
          D) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause "C" above may
          please begranted;

2.               The primary grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of seeking

directions to be issued to the Respondent No. 3-Deputy Director of Education to




Bharati
                                        2 of 3                       401 - WP-4858-2026.DOC



consider and decide the proposal dated 27 th November 2025 of the Petitioner for

the approval of the transfer/appointment of the Petitioner from non-aided

establishment to fully aided establishment on the post of Junior College Teacher.

3.        The facts lie in a narrow compass:-

i.        The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior College Teacher by the

management of Respondent No. 4-College against a clear and vacant post in

several schools in Ahmednagar and Pune districts, as per due procedure of law. It is

the Petitioner’s contention that he has diligently and honestly worked with

Respondent No. 4-College for many years.

ii.       Since service of similarly situated people was not continued with the aided

section of schools/colleges or approved by the Respondent No. 4-College, they

approached this court by filing Writ Petition No. 2549 of 2018 and Writ Petition

No. 3530 of 2018, seeking directions for issuance of appointment orders/

reinstatement with Rayat Education Society, Satara. A Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court by the order dated 13th September 2021, in view of the consent terms

tendered, passed an order and disposed of the aforesaid petitions.

iii.      Thereafter, on 20th August 2025, considering the seniority, qualifications,

and continuity of the Petitioner’s services as per consent terms, the Joint Secretary

(Sec.) Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara issued a transfer/continuation order to the

Petitioner from non-aided section to fully-aided section on the post of Junior

College Teacher with schools run by the Rayat Education Society, Satara.

iv.       In view of the transfer/ continuation order, Respondent No. 4-College

submitted a proposal dated 27th November 2025 for approval for the appointment/




Bharati
                                         3 of 3                       401 - WP-4858-2026.DOC



transfer of the Petitioner from non-aided section (Division) to fully-aided section

(Division) on the post of Junior College Teacher to Respondent No. 3-Deputy

Director of Education

v.        It is the Petitioner’s contention that the aforesaid proposal dated 27 th

November 2025 remains undecided, and that the aforesaid inaction on part of

Respondent No. 3-Deputy Director of Education is causing grave prejudice to the

Petitioner, and it is incumbent upon Respondent No. 3-Deputy Director of

Education to decide the aforesaid proposal.

3.            In our view, considering the limited relief that the Petitioner seeks in

the Petition, and although there being no written opposition/reply of the

Respondents, considering the nature of the orders we propose to pass, no prejudice

would be caused to the Respondents. The following order would serve the ends of

justice:-

                                         ORDER

i.            Respondent No. 3-Deputy Director of Education to consider and

decide the proposal dated 27th November 2025 in accordance with the law, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date this

order is made available to the said Respondent by the Petitioner.

ii.           Let all the parties be heard.

iii.          All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

iv.           Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No. costs.



              (AARTI SATHE, J.)                     (G.S.KULKARNI, J.)




Bharati


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.