Allowed¶35

Sharada Popat Rode ( sHARADA D. Bhalekar) and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Dec 2025WP/11730/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant teacher transfer approval; unaided D.Ed. College to aided secondary school; retrospective versus prospective application of Government Resolution dated 01.04.2021; Clause 4 of G.R.; Rule 41A(1)(d) MEPS Rules 1981 amendment effective 08.06.2020; Rule 41 MEPS Rules; Education Officer refusal of approval; New English School Belawade Tal. Patan District Satara; quashing of rejection order dated 09.09.2025; writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c); Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order dated 9th September 2025 quashed and set aside; Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c). ¶35

Sharada Popat Rode ( sHARADA D. Bhalekar) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order dated 9th September 2025 quashed and set aside; Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c).

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 1st April 2021, relied upon by Respondent No.3 to reject the approval proposal, being prospective in operation, could be applied retrospectively to the Petitioner No.1's transfer effected on 17th June 2019. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The G.R. dated 1st April 2021 is prospective in operation and could not have been applied retrospectively to the Petitioner's case; reliance placed by Respondent No.3 on Clause 4 of the G.R. for refusing approval to the transfer effected on 17th June 2019 is unsustainable.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Rule 41A[1][d] of the MEPS Rules was introduced by amendment with effect from 8th June 2020; Rule 41 as it stood did not prohibit transfer from D.Ed. College to secondary school; the amendment cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the Petitioner's transfer effected on 17th June 2019.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Petition succeeds; the impugned Order dated 9th September 2025 is quashed and set aside, and the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c).ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Approval of transfer of an approved Assistant Teacher from an unaided D.Ed. College to an aided secondary school with effect from 17.06.2019 was refused by the Education Officer (Respondent No.3) by order dated 09.09.2025 on the ground of non-compliance with the G.R. dated 01.04.2021. Held: the G.R. dated 01.04.2021 is prospective in operation and nothing in it permits retrospective application; reliance on Clause 4 thereof for refusing approval to a transfer effected much prior to the G.R. is unsustainable. Similarly, Rule 41A(1)(d) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 — requiring transfer on equal or same cadre and barring transfer from D.Ed. College to secondary school — was inserted by amendment with effect from 08.06.2020, whereas the Petitioner's transfer took effect on 17.06.2019, when Rule 41 as it stood did not prohibit such transfer; the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. Impugned order dated 09.09.2025 quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c).

¶1

913-Wp-11730-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11730 OF 2025

¶5

Mrs. Sharada Popat Rode ( Ms. Sharad Dadu Bhalekar) & Anr. … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Sagar A. Mane a/w. Mr. Rushikesh D. Jagdale for the Petitioners. Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the Respondents-State.

¶9

——————

¶10

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.

¶11

Date : 24^th December 2025.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶14

2. Learned A.G.P. requested for some time to take instructions and

¶15

respond. However, we are not inclined to grant time, as in our opinion the Government Resolution (G.R.), which forms the basis of rejection of the Petitioner’s proposal is prospective in operation and could not have been applied retrospectively to the Petitioner’s case.

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

osk

¶18

913-Wp-11730-2025.doc

¶19

3. The challenge in this Petition is to the Order dated 9^th September 2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 refusing to grant approval to appointment of the Petitioner No.1, as Assistant Teacher from unaided school to the aided school by the Petitioner No.2-Management.

¶20

4. The Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in unaided D.Ed. College of Petitioner No.2 on probation for two years on 10^th December 2007. The Respondent No.3-Education Officer granted approval to the Petitioner No.1 on probation basis by an Order dated 9^th May 2008. After completion of probation period, the Respondent No.2 granted approval for continuity of service to the Petitioner No.1 by an Order dated 19^th June 2010. The Petitioner No.2 passed a resolution dated 3^rd June 2019 for transferring the Petitioner No.1 from unaided school to its aided school, namely, New English School, Belawade, Tal. Patan, District Satara with effect from 17^th June 2019. Accordingly, transfer order dated 16^th June 2019 was issued to the Petitioner No.1 pursuant to which she was relieved from unaided school and she joined aided school on 17^th June 2019.

¶21

5. The Headmaster of aided school submitted the proposal to the Respondent No.3 to grant approval to the above transfer. The Respondent No.3 issued Order dated 16^th June 2023, rejecting the proposal. Hence, the Petitioners challenged the said Order before this

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

osk

¶24

913-Wp-11730-2025.doc

¶25

Court vide Writ Petition No. 6909 of 2024.

¶26

6. The Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 21^st March 2025 disposed of Writ Petition No. 6909 of 2024 by calling upon the Respondent No.3 to treat the impugned Order as Show-Cause-Notice and decide the proposal within four weeks. On 23^rd April 2025 the Headmaster re-submitted the proposal to the Respondent No.3 by removing the deficiencies mentioned in Order dated 16^th June 2023. The Respondent No.3 rejected the proposal by referring to the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 1^st April 2021 issued by the Respondent No.1.

¶27

7. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the proposal has been rightly rejected by the Respondent No.3, as the Petitioner No.1’s proposal is not compliant with the conditions laid down in the G.R. dated 1^st April 2021 and therefore the Petitioners case will have to be considered in terms of the said G.R., which was in force as on the date of submission of the proposal.

¶28

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

9. The Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in unaided school by Order dated 10^th December 2007. After working in the unaided school for almost 12 years, which appointment was approved, the Petitioner No.1 was transferred to fully aided school with effect from 17^th June 2019, but the said transfer was not approved by the Respondent

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

osk

¶32

913-Wp-11730-2025.doc

¶33

No.3 vide the impugned Order dated 9^th September 2025. Reliance placed by the Respondent No.3 on Clause 4 of the G.R. dated 1^st April 2021 for refusing approval to transfer is unsustainable. The transfer has been made with effect from 17^th June 2019, much prior to the G.R. issued on 1^st April 2021. There is nothing in the said G.R. to indicate that the said G.R. can be made retrospectively applicable. Rule 41A[1][d] of the The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules), requires transfer to be made on equal or same cadre and the transfer cannot be made from D.Ed. College to secondary school. This provision was introduced by way of amendment to the MEPS Rules with effect from 8^th June 2020. However, the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 was made with effect from 17^th June 2019. Rule 41 as it stood does not prohibit such transfer from D.Ed. College to secondary school. The amendment made with effect from 8^th June 2020 cannot be made applicable retrospectively, in respect of the transfer of the Petitioner effected on 17^th June 2019.

¶34

10. Consequently, the Petition succeeds. The impugned Order dated 9^th September 2025 is quashed and set-aside.

¶35

11. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c).

¶36

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.12.24 18:05:11 +0530

¶37

[ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ]

¶38

4 of 4

¶39

osk

Sharada Popat Rode ( sHARADA D. Bhalekar) and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharada Popat Rode ( sHARADA D. Bhalekar) and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamrao Namdeo Shinde Since Decd. Thr. Lrs Suman Shamrao Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Department of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Smt. Sulbha Mahadev Gavali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Akash Ashok Dhenge Vs State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Shri Shaikh Jamal Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amol Dashrath Killekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Amrut Sudhakar Narvekar Vs the Collector, Sindhudurg, Dist. Sindhudurg