Disposed¶29

Vitthal Jaywantrao More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026WP/15514/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer approval assistant teacher; partially aided to 100% aided post; Rule 41A(1)(h) MEPS Rules 1981; Amendment Rules 2025; Commissioner (Education) Maharashtra State Pune; Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Nanded; pending proposal forwarded; 8 weeks deadline; mandamus; Exhibit-X notification dated 13.11.2025; Exhibit-Y clarification dated 18.02.2026; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No. 15514 of 2025; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner (Education), Maharashtra State, Pune (a non-party) to decide the petitioner's pending Rule 41A proposal by calling it from Respondent No.3, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, within 8 weeks; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶29

Vitthal Jaywantrao More vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

After the 2025 amendment to Rule 41A(1)(h) of the MEPS Rules and the State's clarification, which authority is competent to decide the petitioner's pending proposal seeking approval of his transfer from a partially aided to a 100% aided post, and within what time should it be decided?

¶27

Court's answer

In view of notification Exhibit-X (substitution of 'Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra, Pune' in place of 'Education Officer or Deputy Director, as the case may be' in Rule 41A(1)(h)) and communication Exhibit-Y, the appropriate authority to decide the petitioner's pending proposal is the Commissioner (Education), Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Though the Commissioner (Education) is not a party to the proceedings, the Court directed him to decide the petitioner's proposal by calling it from Respondent No.3, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, within a period of 8 weeks.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 – Rule 41A(1)(h) – Amendment Rules, 2025 substitute 'Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra, Pune' for 'Education Officer or Deputy Director, as the case may be'; State clarification directs that all pending proposals under Rule 41A be forwarded to the Commissioner (Education) for decision. Assistant Teacher's pending proposal (dated 30.05.2025, Exhibit-E) for approval of transfer from partially aided to 100% aided post, submitted before Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded – though the Commissioner (Education) was not a party, Divisional Bench directed him to call for the proposal from Respondent No.3 and decide it within 8 weeks; writ petition disposed of.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:7779-DB

drp

{1}

wp15514-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.15514 OF 2025

¶7

Vitthal Jaywantrao More

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. Kalyan V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent - State

¶12

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

¶13

DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

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

¶16

“B. By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, Respondent No.3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded may kindly be directed to consider and decide the pending proposal dated 30.05.2025 of the Petitioner (Exhibit-”E”) seeking approval to his transfer from partially aided 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 of 2025 vide order dated 03.02.2025

¶17

C. By issuing writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, Respondent No.3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded may kindly be directed to grant an approval to the transfer of Petitioner from

¶18

wp15514-25.doc

¶19

{2}

¶20

partially aided to 100% aided School 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

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner. Learned AGP

¶22

waives notice for Respondents No.1 to 3.

¶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

wp15514-25.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.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.

¶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.3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, 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/wp15514-25.doc

¶32

{4} wp15514-25.doc

Vitthal Jaywantrao More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Jaywantrao More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sangita Ramkrishna Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt Kamalbai Prakash Ambhore vs the State of Maharashtra

Khandu Aaba Tambe and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Yogesh Devidasrao Digraskar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abdul Aqeel Abdul Jameel vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prasad Prakash Kolle and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others