15-WP-3387-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2026 (Shahbabu Education Society & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. S.N. Tapadia, Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.B. Bissa, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4/State. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 The challenge is to a communication dated 4/3/2026 issued by respondent no.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Akola, to the petitioners saying that the order dated 11/2/2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 600/2025 directing the Education Officer to comply with the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati, within a period of two weeks, if there is no other reason apart from the Government Resolution dated 1/12/2022, has been not complied with. 2] The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Deputy Director of Education, vide order dated 7/11/2023, directed the Education Officer to grant approval to the transfer effected by petitioner no.1 of petitioner no.3 to petitioner no.2 – School. The same having been not done by the Education Officer, the petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 600/2025, wherein, vide order dated 11/2/2026, the aforesaid directions were issued. 2026:BHC-NAG:12404-DB 15-WP-3387-2026 2 3] We have gone through the order, and upon hearing the petitioners on 8/6/2026, while issuing notice, following order was passed : “Heard. Petitioner no. 3 is working as Assistant Teacher in petitioner no. 2 – school run by petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 3 was earlier working in Sir Sayyed Urdu High School, Akola run by petitioner no. 1. The earlier school was not admitted to grant-in-aid whereas petitioner no. 2 – school is admitted to grant. Upon accruing vacancy, petitioner no. 2 – school thought it proper to transfer petitioner no. 3 in petitioner no. 2 – school. On 17-8-2022, petitioner no. 1 submitted proposal to respondent no. 4 seeking approval to the transfer. Respondent no. 4 did not take decision and, therefore, petitioners approached respondent no. 3 seeking appropriate directions. Respondent no. 3 found merit in the case put forth by the petitioners and accordingly directed respondent no. 4 to grant approval to the transfer of petitioner no.3 from Sir Syed Urdu High School, Akola to petitioner no. 2 – school. Order to that effect was passed on 19-6-2024. Respondent no. 4 failed to act in terms of said order, and, therefore, petitioners approached this Court seeking directions against respondent no. 4 to act in terms of order passed by respondent no. 3. On 11-2-2026, the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 600/2025 considered the aforesaid case and directed respondent no. 4 to comply with order passed by respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks. Respondent no. 4, however, refused to grant approval on the ground that on 13-11- 025, Rule 41(A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 was amended and Commissioner of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune is empowered to grant approval to the transfer of the employees from unaided school to aided school. 15-WP-3387-2026 3 The argument is that the amendment has no retrospective effect and, therefore, the order passed is apparently illegal. For the time being, issue notice to respondent nos. 1 to 4, returnable in two weeks. In the meantime, respondent no. 4 shall take corrective measures, if otherwise, there is no legal impediment. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4.” 4] As could be seen, respondent no.4 refused to grant approval on the ground that on 13/11/2025, Rule 41(A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, was amended, and the Commissioner of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune, is vested with the power of granting approval to transfer the employees from unaided School to aided School. 5] The petition was thereafter listed from time to time. The stand of the respondents was that efforts are being taken to grant approval, however, because of the amendment noted above, respondent no.4 is facing difficulty in processing the file. 6] The learned A.G.P. has shown us, across the bar, a communication dated 24/6/2026 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Akola, to petitioner no.1 – Society requesting petitioner no.1 to submit application and other details as mentioned in the communication dated 24/6/2026. The communication is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 7] The petitioners, however, did not submit the information saying that the directions were given to the 15-WP-3387-2026 4 Education Officer. The information, however, is sought so as to forward the proposal to the Commissioner of Education to grant approval. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the information so sought has been already furnished to the Education Officer and that it is his duty to comply with the order passed by the Deputy Director so also this Court. 8] The learned A.G.P. submits that because of change in circumstances, it is not possible for the Education Officer to process the file for two reasons; one is, the information is to be now furnished online, and second is, in terms of the amendment, the powers of granting approval to the transfer of teachers from unaided School to aided School are now vested with the Commissioner of Education. 9] The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner should have furnished information as sought in the communication dated 24/6/2026. We do not find any reason why should the petitioners be so reluctant to furnish the information. Whether the approval to transfer is accorded by the Education Officer or the Commissioner of Education will be hardly of any relevance to the petitioners. The purpose of filing petition is to obtain sanction to the transfer made by petitioner no.1. The order passed by this Court indicates that the Education Officer was directed to comply with the order passed by the Deputy Director if there is no other impediment. The Education Officer has come up with a case that in view of change in circumstances and amendment to the Rules, it is not in his hands to accord approval to the transfer but 15-WP-3387-2026 5 the powers are vested with the Commissioner of Education. He further submits that the information in this regard is to be furnished by petitioner no.1 online. Despite the request made, petitioner no.1 is not furnishing the information, and therefore, the file is pending. 10] If such is the case, we find that for non- cooperation of petitioner no.1, the order passed by the Deputy Director so also by this Court are not being complied with. We, accordingly, indicated to the petitioners’ Counsel to furnish information as sought by the Education Officer. The Counsel, however, is bent upon seeking approval at the hands of the Education Officer. Such an adamant stand, according to us, will only result in dismissal of petition. 11] Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The petitioners, however, are at liberty to furnish information as sought by the Education Officer. If the information is so furnished, the Education Officer shall forward the same to the Commissioner of Education for granting approval to the transfer made by petitioner no.1 as mentioned above. 12] The petition is disposed of in terms of above. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 19:03:15