Disposed

Chanda Gulab Sarwade v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Bombay HC18 Feb 2026WP/1056/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Teacher sought mandamus to decide his pending proposal for approval of transfer from unaided to fully aided post under the MEPS Rules. After amendment rules vested decision-making in Commissioner (Education), Pune, the court directed him to call and decide the proposal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner (Education), Pune directed to call the petitioner's pending proposal from Respondent No.5 and decide it within eight weeks.

Chanda Gulab Sarwade vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:7788-DB

drp

{1}

wp1056-26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1056 OF 2026

Chanda Gulab Sarwade

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr. Ramesh I. Wakade, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents - State

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.J.

¶14

DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. Present Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶17

“B. By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, Respondent No.5 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed may kindly be directed to consider and decide the pending proposal dated 01.10.2025 of Petitioner (Exhibit-”A”) seeking approval to his transfer from unaided to 100% aided post/division as Assistant Teacher within stipulated period as per law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 1021/2025 vide order dated 03.02.2025

¶18

C. By issuing writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, Respondent No.5 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed may kindly be directed to grant an approval to the transfer of Petitioner from

¶19

{2} wp1056-26.doc

¶20

unaided to 100% aided post / division in the prescribed pay scale along with all consequential benefits of regular increments after considering services rendered by him on unaided / partially aided division / post.”

¶21

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner. Learned AGP

¶22

waives notice for the Respondents No.1 to 5.

¶23

Learned AGP places on record notification in respect of amendment in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981 i.e. Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2025. By this notification, amendment has been carried out in Rule No. 41A (1) (h) of the said Rules and in place of words “Education Officer or Deputy Director, as the case may be” the words and brackets, “Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra, Pune” have been substituted. The said notification is taken on record by marking Exhibit-X. Learned AGP also places on record the clarification issued by the State Government to Commissioner (Education), Maharashtra State, Pune, on 18^th February, 2026, thereby directing that in view of the amendment / notification dated 13^th November, 2025, all the pending proposals under Rule 41A of the said Rules, have been directed to be forwarded to the Commissioner

¶24

{3}

¶25

wp1056-26.doc

¶26

(Education) and the Commissioner (Education) is asked to decide the same. Copy of the said letter is taken on record by marking Exhibit-Y.

¶27

The fact is not in dispute that the proposal of the Petitioner was submitted as per the provisions of Rule 41A (1) (h) of the said Rules, before Respondent No.5. However, in view of notification Exhibit-X and communication Exhibit-Y, the appropriate authority to decide the same, would now be the Commissioner (Education) Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶28

In view of this notification, though the Commissioner (Education) is not a party to the proceedings, yet we direct him to decide the said proposal by calling it from Respondent No.5 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, within a period of 8 weeks from today.

¶29

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶30

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

drp/wp1056-26.doc

Chanda Gulab Sarwade v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanda Gulab Sarwade v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajannan Nayabrao Mogal vs the Union of India and Others

Vijay Dnyanoba Kharat and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Kalikadevi Apang Shikshan Sanstha and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manisha Sujit Gavhane vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manisha Sarjerao Patil vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lahu Hanmantrao Kathwate and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others