Disposed¶18

Urmila Ganpati Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026WP/5145/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur; Writ Petition No. 5145 of 2025; decided 22 January 2026; approval of transfer of Assistant Teacher from unaided to aided post; Rule 41A, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules); Government Resolution dated 1st April 2021; retrospectivity of Rule 41A and G.R.; refusal of approval by Education Officer (Secondary); order dated 16th November 2022 set aside; fresh decision within two months; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16th November 2022 of the Education Officer refusing approval to the transfer set aside; Education Officer directed to decide the proposal afresh within two months from receipt of a copy of the order ¶18

Urmila Ganpati Shinde and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Education Officer could refuse approval to the petitioner's transfer from an unaided to an aided post of Assistant Teacher by relying on Rule 41A of the MEPS Rules and the Government Resolution dated 1st April 2021, both of which post-date the transfer

¶16

Court's answer

Rule 41A of the MEPS Rules and the Government Resolution dated 1st April 2021 have no retrospective effect and cannot be applied to a transfer effected on 1st June 2020, before Rule 41A was introduced on 8th June 2020

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The respondent No.5 - Education Officer ought not to have refused to grant approval to the petitioner's transfer by relying on Rule 41A of the MEPS Rules and the G.R. dated 1st April 2021

¶16

Key takeaways

The order dated 16th November 2022 passed by the Education Officer is set aside, with a direction to the concerned Education Officer to decide the proposal afresh within a time frame of two months from receipt of a copy of the orderratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer of an Assistant Teacher from an unaided post to an aided post was effected on 1st June 2020. Rule 41A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 was introduced on 8th June 2020, and a Government Resolution dated 1st April 2021 followed. After the petitioner served for 7 years, the Education Officer (Secondary) refused approval to the transfer by relying on Rule 41A and the said G.R. Holding that neither Rule 41A nor the G.R. has retrospective effect, the Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) held the Education Officer ought not to have refused approval on that basis, set aside the order dated 16th November 2022, and directed the Education Officer to decide the proposal afresh within two months. Writ petition disposed of.

Urmila Ganpati Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Ganpati Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Raosaheb Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Anr.

Firoj Mohammedhanif Tamkar vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary Social Welfare Dep. and Ors.

Sweta Sunil Vasgade vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pratibha Nitin Sorate and Anr. vs the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilha Parishad, Solapur

Meera Shriniwas Dubas Prop. of M/S Meera Shriniwas Dubas vs Bank of Maharashtra Thr. Its Zonal Manager and Ors.

Shivaji Nanaso Ingole (Father of Detenu) vs the District Magistrate and Others