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