Disposed

Lahu Hanmantrao Kathwate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Feb 2026WP/151/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions for decision on proposals for approval of transfer from partially aided to aided school divisions under the MEPS Rules. Following an amendment vesting power in the Commissioner (Education), Pune, the court directed that authority to decide the pending proposals within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner (Education), Pune directed to decide the transfer approval proposals within 8 weeks after calling them from Respondent No.3.

Lahu Hanmantrao Kathwate and Others vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:7783-DB

{1}

wp151-26.doc

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.151 OF 2026

¶7

Lahu Hanmantrao Kathwate & Others

¶8

PETITIONERS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. V. M. Kagne, 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 relief:

¶17

“B. By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the like nature, be pleased to direct the Deputy Director of Education, Latur to take decision on the proposals dated 30.09.2025 (EXH. “E”) of the Petitioners for approvals for transfer from partially aided to aided division, without referring to the Government Resolutions dated 29.04.2024 and 03.10.2024, at the earliest preferably within a period of 1 month from passing order by this Hon’ble Court”

¶18

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners. Learned AGP

¶19

{2}

¶20

wp151-26.doc

¶21

waives notice for all the Respondents.

¶22

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

¶23

{3}

¶24

wp151-26.doc

¶25

The fact is not in dispute that the proposals of the Petitioners were submitted as per the provisions of Rule 41A (1) (h) of the said Rules, before Respondent No.3. 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.

¶26

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.3 Deputy Director of Education, Latur, within a period of 8 weeks from today.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

drp/wp151-26.doc

Lahu Hanmantrao Kathwate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lahu Hanmantrao Kathwate and Others 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

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

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