Manesh Bhausaheb Kharat and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manesh Bhausaheb Kharat and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respective Education Officers of respondents No.2 to 8 to decide the petitioners' representations as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four (4) weeks, on their own merits and in accordance with law; liberty reserved to the petitioners to resort to appropriate remedy if the decision is adverse.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the transfer process undertaken by respondents No.2 to 8 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, the petitioners would be wrongly treated as surplus and transferred before completing their normal tenure of service, as more teachers were sought to be transferred than the vacant posts available. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The respective Education Officers of respondents No.2 to 8 are directed to decide the representations of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four (4) weeks, on their own merits and in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

In case the decision on the representations is adverse to the petitioners, they will be at liberty to resort to such appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law.ratio¶5
With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Teachers working under different Zilla Parishads (petitioners) challenged, by writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, the transfer list published by respondent No.8 - Zilla Parishad and the transfer process undertaken by respondents No.2 to 8 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, apprehending that, as more teachers were sought to be transferred than the vacant posts available, they would be declared senior-most and surplus and transferred before completing their normal tenure of service. Their representations of August 2025 to the respective Education Officers (annexed at pages 273 to 304) were kept pending. Counsel for respondent-Zilla Parishad pointed out that the entire transfer process under the Government Resolution had been stayed by the Commissioner of Education's order dated 29.11.2025, and that under the said Resolution an alternate remedy of approaching the constituted Committee was available. Noting the stay of the transfer and absorption-of-surplus-teachers process, the Division Bench (Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ.), per court, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Education Officers of respondents No.2 to 8 to decide the petitioners' representations as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four (4) weeks, on their own merits and in accordance with law, reserving to the petitioners liberty to resort to appropriate remedy if the decision is adverse.

2026:BHC-AUG:1299-DB

1 91.WP.10840.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 10840 OF 2025

MANESH BHAUSAHEB KHARAT AND OTHERS VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Jadhav Aummaheshwari S.

AGP for Respondents: Mr. V.M. Jaware

Advocate for Respondents No.4 and 7 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat

Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. V.P. Narwade h/f.

Adv. Manjushri V. Narwade Advocate for Respondent No.8: Mr. Umesh B. Godse h/f. Mr. A.R. Nikam

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 12.01.2026

PER COURT:

Heard.

By this writ petition, the petitioners who are working

under different Zilla Parishads are before this Court challenging the transfer list published by the respondent No.8 – Zilla Parishad herein. The petitioners are also aggrieved with the said transfer process as the petitioners apprehend that by virtue of the transfer

process undertaken by respondents No.2 to 8, the petitioners would be unnecessarily treated as surplus and would be transferred though

2 91.WP.10840.25.odt

their normal tenure of service would not be completed. The petitioners by relying on chart incorporated in the writ petition submits that as against the vacant posts available, more teachers are tried to be transferred to their respective schools as a result of which the petitioners would be declared as senior most and consequently declaring them surplus they would be transferred even before completing their normal tenure of service.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent – Zilla Parishad, submits that by virtue of Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024, if the petitioners are aggrieved by any irregularity in the process of transfer being undertaken, the petitioners have alternate remedy to approach the Committee constituted under the said Government Resolution. He, however, submits that the entire process of transfer undertaken by virtue of said Government Resolution has been stayed under the orders of Commissioner of Education dated 29.11.2025 and as such the learned counsel for the respondent – Zilla Parisahad submits that as no step for transferring the surplus teachers is undertaken presently, therefore, there is no immediate apprehension as expressed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that though the petitioners have made comprehensive

3 91.WP.10840.25.odt

representations to the respective Education Officers of respondents No.2 to 8 – Zilla Parishad, making grievance which is made in the writ petition in the month of August 2025, however, their representations have been kept pending without deciding the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the said representations which are annexed from pages 273 to 304 of the writ petition.

Considering the fact that now the process of transfer as well as absorption of surplus teachers itself has been stayed under the order of Commissioner of Education vide order dated 29.112025, we direct the respective Education Officers of respondents No.2 to 8 to decide the representations of the petitioners as referred above, as expeditiously as possible and, in any case within a period of four (4) weeks from today on its own merits and in accordance with law. In case the decision is adverse to the petitioners, in that case, the petitioners will be at liberty to resort to appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law. With these directions the writ petition stands disposed of.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)

habeeb/