Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.

(1) Heard Mr. Satish S. Raut, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent- State.

(2) The Petition is iled by an employee of a private School Management together with the School Management seeking directions to the Respondent No. 4-the Deputy Director of Education to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as full time Assistant Teacher. Consequential directions to the Respondent No. 4 to include the name of Petitioner No. 1 in the Shalarth system are also sought by the Petitioners.

(3) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the nature of the reliefs prayed herein, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition inally. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to their factual status. Petitioner No. 1 is the Assistant Teacher, Petitioner No. 2 is the Management, and Petitioner No. 3 is the Junior College where the Petitioner No. 1 is transferred on aided post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi).

(4) SUBJECT MATTER:

                    (4.1) Refusal to accord approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 on an insubstantial and factually incorrect ground is the subjectmatter challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(5) FACTS IN BRIEF:

                    (5.1) As per Petitioners’ contentions, the staf approval for the year 2015-2016 demonstrated one unaided post of full time teacher vacant in the Petitioner No. 3-College for 11th and 12th standard for the subject English.

                    (5.2) Accordingly the Management approached to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 seeking information as to the availability of any suitable surplus teacher for unaided division. The college Principal also submitted an application seeking permission to issue advertisement to ill up the subject-matter post.

                    (5.3) It is submitted that there was no response to either of the application, from the end of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. This constrained the Management to publish an advertisement in daily newspaper Lokmat on 6th June 2015 inviting applications from the suitable candidates for being appointed on unaided subject-matter post.

                    (5.4) During the recruitment process, the Petitioner No. 1 was found the most suitable candidate. As such the Management issued an appointment order on 1st September 2016 thereby appointing the Petitioner on the clear vacant post of Assistant Teacher (English subject) w.e.f. 2nd September 2016.

                    (5.5) It’s a matter of record that the Petitioner No. 1 satisfactorily completed the probation period and became permanent.

                    (5.6) It is pertinent to note that consequent to the proposal submitted by the Management, the Education Oicer granted approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 pursuant to the appointment order dated 1st September 2016.

                    (5.7) Further, consequent to superannuation of a teacher in the year 2022, a vacancy arose for one aided post of Assistant Teacher for the subject of Hindi. Suice to note, the post belonged to Other Backward Classes of citizen category.

                    (5.8) The Petitioner No. 1 in the meantime had acquired necessary qualiications in Hindi Subject and also possessed qualiication of MA. B.Ed. As such the Petitioner No. 1 was it to be placed as Assistant Teacher on the aided vacant post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in the Petitioner No. 3-Junior College being a member of Other Backward Class community.

                    (5.9) As there was no impediment in appointing the Petitioner No.1 by transfer on the subject matter aided post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi), the Management appointed the Petitioner No.1 vide appointment order dated 13th June 2022 on the aided post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi).

                    (5.10) On 18th June 2022, the Management submitted a proposal to the Respondent-Authority i.e. Respondent No. 4 for grant of approval to the Petitioner No.1’s appointment by transfer from unaided post of Assistant Teacher to the aided post of Assistant Teacher.

                    (5.11) It is the contention of the Petitioners that they had been pursuing the proposal pending with the Respondent No. 4 numerous times vide letters dated 28th June, 2023, 8th February 2024, 10th June 2024 and 8th October 2024.

                    (5.12) The grievance of the Petitioners is that they had also iled Writ Petition No. 5230 of 2025 in this Court raising grievance against the pendency of the subject matter proposal at the behest of Respondent No. 4. That, this Court observing laxity on the part of Respondent No. 4 imposed cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the Respondent No. 4 and also cautioning that an inquiry under Section 10 of Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Preventions of Delay in Discharge of Oicial Duties Act, 2005 be instituted if the concerned authorities keep pending the approval proposals for months together.

                    (5.13) The Petitioners submit that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5340 of 2025 was brought to the notice of the Respondent-Authority.

                    (5.14) The cause of action to ile present Writ Petition arose vide an order dated 17th June 2025 whereby the Respondent No. 4 conclusively rejected the proposal that was iled by the Management seeking approval to the transfer of Petitioner No.1 from un-aided post of Assistant Teacher to the aided post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi).

(6) Petitioners’ Argument:-

                    (6.1) Mr. Satish S. Raut, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would invite this Court’s attention to page no. 45 of the writ petition paper-book, whereby the Respondent No. 4 has recorded reason to reject the approval submitted by the Petitioners. The predominant reason for rejection of the approval is reproduced as follows:

                   

                    (6.2) Mr. Raut, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioner No.1 was in fact given an additional charge of the subject Geography, and hence it was factually incorrect to hold that the she was appointed for the subject of Geography.

                    (6.3) Mr. Raut would further submit that as the Petitioner No.1 was never appointed in the subject of ‘Geography’, the proposal could not have been rejected for want of degree certiicate in the subject of Geography.

                    (6.4) Mr. Raut, would conclude his argument by submitting that the facts itself speak, that there was no derogation to either of provision in Rule 41-A Maharashtra Private Schools Conditions Rule 1988, while the Petitioner No.1 was transferred on the subject-matter post. He would submit that the then Respondent No.4 rejected the proposal, having been annoyed of the earlier order passed by this Court against him.

                    (6.5) It is no more res integra that an Assistant Teacher can be transferred from an unaided post to aided post in the same or other school run and administered by the same school management. The Petitioners has placed reliance on the Judgment and order dated 29th November 2021 passed by this court (Principal Seat) in the case of Rahul Prakash Nilgar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr in Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2021 and bunch of petitions with lead Writ Petition Nos. 5313 of 2017 in Miss Devkar Dipali Kisan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors decided at Principal Seat of this Court on 25th April, 2019.

                    (6.6) During the course of hearing Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned AGP has iled reply aidavit on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education, Pune.

                    The relevant portion from the reply aidavit is reproduced as follows:

                    “5) I say that my predecessor has rejected the pending proposal of the Petitioner without giving show cause notice about rejection of proposal and without considering the provisions of Rule 41 (A) of the MEPS Act and regulation. In fact, the irst Petitioner has completed more than 5 years' service in unaided post i.e. from 02.09.2016 to 13.06.2022 as per Rule 41(A) (1) (C) which was approved by my oice on 09.03.2019.

                    6) I further say that the work load of English subject is more than suicient for the Full Time Teacher as well as geography subject is additional charge assigned to the irst Petitioner, considering the irst Petitioner is having subject of geography in the second year at the graduation and after considering the provisions prescribed in the G.R, this Respondent authority has granted an approval to the Petitioner on 09.03.2019 for unaided post.

                    7) In view of the above, the irst Petitioner has been appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher for the subject of English and the record relects that subject of geography was only additional charge assigned to the irst Petitioner by this oice on 09.03.2019 for unaided post.”

(7) CONSIDERATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS:

                    (7.1) We indeed appreciate the fair approach of the respondent in the Reply Aidavit, and the fair disclosure of the facts put forth by the Deputy Director of Education, Pune with the able assistance of learned AGP.

                    (7.2) It is abundantly clear from the Reply Aidavit (supra) that the Petitioner No.1 was never appointed on the post for the subject Geography. In fact, the Petitioner No.1 was merely entrusted with an additional charge of Geography subject. The reply aidavit if read conjointly with Petitioner No. 1’s initial appointment order, it would falsify the reason recorded by the then Deputy Director of Education who passed the impugned rejection order dated 17th June 2025.

                    (7.3) The gist of the above discussion is that the impugned order dated 17th June 2025 was passed on erroneous factual premises and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside.

                    (7.4) Consequently we have no hesitation to hold that the Petition deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) which reads as follows:

                    “A) Call for relevant record and papers from the oice of the Respondent No.4 and after going through the same quash and set aside the impugned communication/ letter dated 17.06.2025, issued by the Respondent No.4 and for that purposes issue appropriate writ and/or order.

                    B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 4 herein to grant approval to the proposal dated 18.06.2022 to the transfer/appointment of 1st Petitioner by way of transfer as Assistant Teacher with efect from 13.06.2022 and further be pleased to direct Respondent No.4 herein to forthwith enter the name of the 1st Petitioner in Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth Identity Number and further direct the Respondents herein to release grant in aid so as to pay salary to the 1st Petitioner since the date of her transfer/appointment and thereafter to pay regular salary with all consequential beneits.”

(8) In view of this, we pass following order.

                    ::ORDER::

                    A. The Respondent No. 4 shall accord approval to the transfer appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 on the aided post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in the Petitioner No. 3-Junior College pursuant to her appointment dated 13th June 2022. Respondent No. 4 shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

                    B. On grant of such approval, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall include Petitioner No.1’s name in Shalarth system and grant Shalarth Identity to her within four weeks from the date of approval. The salary grants shall be accordingly disbursed immediately within four weeks from inclusion of the Petitioner No.1’s name in the Shalarth system.

                C. Writ Petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute in above terms.