Quashed

Anand Sikandar Gangne v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC26 Jul 2021WP/5000/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, appointed on unaided post, sought transfer to aided post. The proposal was rejected by the Education Officer citing surplus teachers. The court held that rejection solely on surplus teachers is invalid. Therefore, quashed the impugned order and directed the officer to reconsider the transfer within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected was quashed; Education Officer directed to reconsider transfer proposal within four months.

Anand Sikandar Gangne Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

73WP5000

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

73 WRIT PETITION NO. 5000 OF 2021

¶5

ANAND SIKANDAR GANGNE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar.
AGP for Respondents : Mr. A.S. Shinde.
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P.R. Tandale.
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Amol Vasmatkar.

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
 DATED : 26.07.2021

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

We have heard Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Advcoate for the
petitioner and Mr. Tandale, learned Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

2.The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an assistant
teacher on an unaided post on 15.06.2012. The appointment of the
petitioner on unaided post is approved under the order dated
31.12.2014 by the Education Officer. On 14.07.2020, the petitioner
is transferred to the aided post. The proposal submitted for approval
to the transfer of the petitioner from unaided to aided post is rejected.
The same is rejected basically on the ground that there are surplus
teachers available.

¶13

73WP5000

¶14

¶15

3.Mr. Tandale, the learned counsel relies upon the circular dated
28.06.2016 and submits that the petitioner has not followed the
procedure envisaged under Section 5 of the MEPS Act.

¶16

4.We have, under our judgment and order dated 04.07.2019 in
Writ Petition No. 1493/2018 with connected Writ Petitions, observed
that the Management / employer has the powers to transfer the
employee from unaided to aided division under Rule 41 of the MEPS
Rules and some of the clauses of circular dated 28.06.2016 are
erroneous.

¶17

5.The Education Officer naturally is required to consider the
seniority, roaster and the qualification of the petitioner before
passing the order of approval to the transfer from unaided to aided
post. However, if the petitioner is senior and as per the roaster the
post is available so also the petitioner possesses the requisite
qualification, then, only on the ground that there are surplus teachers
available the proposal for approval cannot be rejected.

¶18

6. In the light of that the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer (Primary) shall reconsider the proposal seeking approval to the transfer of the petitioner from unaided to

¶19

73WP5000 3

¶20

aided post in tune with the judgment and order of this Court dated
04.07.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1493/2018 with connected Writ
Petitions. The said proposal shall be decided expeditiously,
preferably within four months.

¶21

7. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

( R.N. LADDHA, J. )

¶23

 ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶24

S.P.C.

Anand Sikandar Gangne v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Sikandar Gangne v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amol Rajebhau Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arun Sahebrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Rambhau Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaibhav Sewabhavi Sanstha Tambwa Sanchit Thr Its Secretary Rajabhau Uttamrao Chate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ganesh Arjun Kulkarni and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Rashid Munuwarsab and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others