Madhukar Vishnu Thombare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Prin. Sec. Dept. of School Education and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Madhukar Vishnu Thombare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Prin. Sec. Dept. of School Education and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed; impugned order to lose efficacy; Management to submit fresh transfer proposal; competent authority to decide on merits under Rule 41 of the MEPS Rule, 1981, verifying documents, records and seniority list and considering availability of vacancies, within 60 days from the date of the order, assigning reasons if the proposal is rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's proposal for transfer from the unaided non-teaching category to the aided non-teaching establishment, rejected by order dated 11.5.2022, could be approved given that no provision akin to Rule 41(A) existed for non-teaching employees as on 11.5.2022. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order rejecting the transfer proposal will lose its efficacy; the Management shall submit a fresh proposal seeking approval to the transfer of the Petitioner from the unaided establishment to the aided establishment.

Ratio / Principle

Until such a provision is introduced, Rule 41 would continue to apply even to the non-teaching category.

Key takeaways

The competent authority is to decide the fresh proposal on its own merits, considering the various modalities prescribed under Rule 41 of the MEPS Rule, 1981.ratio¶21
While verifying documents and records, the concerned officer is also to verify the seniority list and arrive at an appropriate decision on the proposal within a period of 60 days from today.ratio¶21-25
The availability of vacancies is to be considered; if the proposal is rejected, the concerned officer is to assign reasons for such rejection.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Per curiam order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), dated 18th February 2025, disposing of Writ Petition No. 32 of 2025 (Madhukar Vishnu Thombare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.). The Petitioner challenged the order dated 11.5.2022 rejecting the proposal to approve the transfer of his services from the unaided non-teaching category to the aided non-teaching establishment; the learned AGP pointed out that as on 11.5.2022 there was no provision for approving such transfers of non-teaching employees akin to Rule 41(A) available for the teaching category. Relying on this Court's judgment in Friends Social Circle, Akola vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 8215 of 2022), wherein the Government Circular dated 1.12.2022, initially stayed on 21.12.2022, was quashed on 21.7.2023, and noting that the State contemplates introducing Rule 41-B for non-teaching staff, the Court held that until such provision is introduced Rule 41 would continue to apply even to the non-teaching category. The impugned order was declared to lose its efficacy; the Management is to submit a fresh proposal, and the competent authority is to decide it on its own merits under Rule 41 of the MEPS Rule, 1981, verifying documents, records and the seniority list, considering availability of vacancies, deciding within 60 days, and assigning reasons if the proposal is rejected.

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date:2025.02.25 907.WP32.2025.odt 11:33:06 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2025

Madhukar Vishnu Thombare. … Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.

Mr. Ashish P. Pawar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent/State.

Mr. Bhushan Jadhav i/b. Mandar Bagkar, for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 18^th FEBRUARY, 2025

P.C. :

The Petitioner is aggrieved that the proposal for transferring his services from the unaided non-teaching category to the aided non-

teaching establishment, has been rejected by an order dated 11.5.2022.

This Petition filed on 23.8.2022, is registered in 2025. The learned AGP submits that, as on 11.5.2022, there was no provision for approving the transfer of non-teaching employees from the unaided establishment to the aided establishment, akin to the provision under

1

Talwalkar

907.WP32.2025.odt

Rule 41(A) to approve such transfers in so far as the teaching category is concerned.

This Court has delivered a Judgment in Friends Social Circle, Akola vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 8215 of 2022), by which the Government Circular dated 1.12.2022, which was initially stayed on 21.12.2022, was finally quashed on 21.7.2023. So also, the State is contemplating introduction of Rule 41-B on the lines of Rule 41-A , for the non-teaching staff. It is well settled that until such provision is introduced, Rule 41 would continue to apply even to the non-teaching category.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off. The impugned order will lose its efficacy. The Management shall submit a fresh proposal seeking approval to the transfer of the Petitioner from the unaided establishment to the aided establishment. The competent authority would decide it on its own merits and by considering the various modalities prescribed under Rule 41 of the MEPS Rule, 1981. While conducting the verification of the documents and records, the concerned officer would also verify the seniority list and arrive at an appropriate decision on the proposal within a period of 60 days from

2

Talwalkar

907.WP32.2025.odt

today. The availability of vacancies will also be considered. If the proposal is rejected, the concerned officer would assign reasons for such rejection.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3

Talwalkar