The Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak Va Kendrapramukh Sabha and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

8. In Writ Petition (ST) No. 15782 of 2025, the petitioners state that the Hind Education Society is registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it runs several schools including the R. M. High School at Miraj and the New English School at Soni, Taluka Miraj. The petitioners have stated that both the schools receive 100% grant-in-aid and the services of the teaching and nonteaching staff are governed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (in short, “MEPS Act”) and the Rules made thereunder in the year 1981. According to the petitioners, 5th respondent-Education Officer (Secondary) issued Sanch Manyata for the R. M. High School at Miraj on 16th April 2025 for the year 2024-2025 taking total number of students at 58 for Class IXth and Class Xth but only one graduate teacher for Class IXth has been sanctioned. Whereas, one post of graduate teachers was sanctioned for the academic year 2023-2024 by 5th respondent. Similarly, the number of total teachers in the New English School at Soni has been drastically reduced and no teacher for Class IXth and/or Class Xth has been sanctioned by 5th respondent. According to the petitioners, the number of students in Page-11 Class IXth should have been combined and treated as one unit for sanction of the posts of graduate teachers in the said school.

9. In Writ Petition (ST) No. 15761 of 2025, the petitioners refer to clause 2.2.[2] of the G.R. dated 28th August 2015 whereunder it was prescribed that three teachers, one each for Science/Mathematics, Language and Social Studies shall be provided in each upper primary school where the combined strength of students is 30 or more for Class VIth. In the Raigad Zilla Parishad Primary School, the total number of students is less than 60 and this upper primary school shall have no teacher allocated for Class VIth. The petitioner no. 2 and Ganesh Prakashrao Munde are the graduate teachers who were appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the Raigad Zilla Parishad Primary School on 12th March 2024. According to the petitioners, the draft order of Sanch Manyata issued on 11th April 2024 for the academic year 2024-2025 for their school sanctioned only one post of graduate teacher for Class VIth. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that this writ petition has been filed at the behest of the aforementioned two teachers who claim that they were appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the said school.

10. Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in both these writ petitions submitted that the Sanch Manyata (Staffing Pattern) for the academic year 2024-2025 finalized by the Education Officer (Primary/Secondary) is contrary to the minimum number of teachers prescribed in the Schedule to the RTE Act for Class VIth. The learned senior counsel contended that the provisions under the RTE Act cannot be amended or diluted or substituted through the executive instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. In sum and substance, what is contended on behalf of the petitioners is that the teachers’ strength for Class VIth is required to be fixed by taking total number of students in all three classes combined together as Page-12 one unit. Whereas, clause 3 of the G.R.-2024 provides that three graduate teachers shall be provided in the primary schools having three divisions of Class VIth and the students’ number is between 60 and 105.

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.17362 OF 2025:

11. This writ petition has been filed by the Shikshan Mandal, Goregaon which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 as well. Mr. Prakash K. Samant who is the Secretary of this Society is the petitioner no.2. The following prayers are made in this writ petition:- “(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the Staff Approval orders dated 31.07.2024 and 25.04.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 in respect of the said school i.e. A. B. Goregaonkar English School (Exhibits-“B” and “B-1” hereto respectively); (b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the Government Resolutions issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Respondent No.1 herein namely (i) Government Resolution dated 15.03.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 (Exhibit-“F” hereto) to the extent mentioned above at pages 65-66 of the Petition, (ii) Government Resolution dated 08.01.2016 issued by Respondent no.1 (Exhibit-“E” hereto) to the extent mentioned hereinabove at pages 65-66 of the Petition, (iii) Government Resolution dated 28.08.2015 issued by Respondent No.1 (Exhibit-“D” hereto) to the extent mentioned hereinabove at pages 65-66 of the Petition and (iv) Government Resolution dated 13.12.2013 issued by Respondent No.1 (Exhibit-“C” hereto) to the extent mentioned hereinabove at pages 65-66 of the Petition and;

(c) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to determine the teachers’ strength and supervisors strength of the said school i.e. A. B. Goregaonkar English School for the academic year 2025-26 and thereafter on the conjoint reading of Schedule to RTE Act and provisions of MEPS Act and MEPS Rules and School Code and the orders issued by Respondent No.1 prior to GR 2013, subject to the minimum prescribed by Schedule to the RTE Act;

(d) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to sanction post of three instructors for (i) art education, (ii) health and physical education and

(iii) work education for Standard VI to Standard VIII, for Academic Year

Page-13 2025-26 and thereafter, in compliance with Entry 1(b)(3) of the Schedule of the RTE Act. (e) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the requirement of providing one class room per teacher, as per Sr. No.2(i) of the Schedule to the RTE Act applies in respect of such number of the teachers appointed in view of the Sr. No.1 of the Schedule to RTE Act and to this extent, read down entry at Sr. No.2(i) of the Schedule to the RTE Act. (f) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that retired teachers, ought not to be appointed in any school and Rule 17 of MEPS Rules, be directed to be complied with by Respondent No.1 to 3. (g) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of Order dated 31.07.2024 and 25.04.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 in respect of the said school i.e. A. B. Goregaonkar English School (Exhibits-“B” and “B-1” hereto respectively); (h) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of Government Resolutions issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Respondent No.1 herein namely (i) Government Resolution dated 15.03.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 (Exhibit-“F” hereto) to the extent mentioned above at pages 65-66 of the Petition; (ii) Government Resolution dated 08.01.2016 issued by Respondent No.1 (Exhibit-“E” hereto) to the extent mentioned hereinabove at pages 65-66 of the Petition, (iii) Government Resolution dated 25.08.2015 issued by Respondent No.1 (Exhibit-“D” hereto) to the extent mentioned hereinabove at pages 65-66 of the Petition and (iv) Government Resolution dated 13.12.2013 issued by Respondent No.1 (Exhibit-“C” hereto) to the extent mentioned hereinabove at pages 65-66 of the Petition.

(i) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition,

Respondent No.3 or any other officer of Respondent No.1, be restrained from issuing directions to any teaching staff employed with the said school i.e. A. B. Goregaonkar English School to be absorbed into any other school.. (j) For costs; (k) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

12. Besides laying challenge to the G.R.s dated 15th March 2024, 8th January 2016, 28th August 2015 and 13th December 2013, the petitioners have challenged the staff approval orders dated 31st July 2024 and 25th April 2025 passed by the Education Inspector–West Zone, Mumbai [also known as the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad]. The petitioners state that 1st petitioner-Society runs a school “A.B. Goregaokar Page-14 English School” which is a Marathi medium secondary school. This school which was established in the year 1940 imparts education to the children from Class Vth to Class Xth. The school receives the grant-in-aid and is governed by the MEPS Act and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981. The petitioners further plead that 1st petitioner- School is governed by the provisions of the RTE Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is submitted that under paragraph no.1 of the Schedule “A” under Chapter IV of the School Code, it is provided that the Inspecting Officer shall decide the total number of teachers according to size and number of classes in the school and the optional subjects taught there and decide the actual expenditure of salaries according to the approved pay scale. The schools in the State of Maharashtra furnish data as to number of students, number of teachers, names of teachers, number of classrooms, number of classes (divisions) etc. on various government portals and the informations furnished on Saral Portal are considered by the respondent no.3 to decide the staffing pattern.

13. Mr. G. S. Godbole, the learned senior counsel submitted that the G.R.-2024 provides new and different parameters to combine the number of teachers and those are contrary to the Pupil-Teacher ratio under the Schedule to the RTE Act and the MEPS Act as well. Referring to clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the G.R.-2024, the learned senior counsel submitted that by introducing a new “minimum students requirement” for approving the post the government seeks to alter the Schedule to the RTE Act. The government has no power to provide the minimum strength of the students different from what has been provided under the Schedule to sanction the post of teachers. It is further submitted that the provisions under the RTE Act does not cover the schools imparting education for Class IXth and the provisions under Rules 9 and 21 of the MEPS Rules are not taken into consideration to fix the number of teachers for Class IXth. The Page-15 MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not prescribe the method of the Pupil-Teacher ratio to fix the total number of teachers but the G.R.- 2024 creates new threshold for sanctioning the posts of teachers. The learned senior counsel submitted that the expression “at least” under clause 1(b)(2) of the Schedule to the RTE Act would indicate that the minimum number of students provided under the Schedule cannot be construed to mean as the maximum ratio. Responding to the decision in “Sindhudurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal”3, the learned senior counsel submitted that the said decision reinforces the applicability of the MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder and held in paragraph no.36 that the State government is required to take steps and follow the Schedule to the RTE Act wherever there is any discrepancy between the Schedule and the government circulars/G.R.s. The engagement of retired teachers is provided under Rule 17 of the MEPS Rules and the G.R.-2024 while fixing the number of supervisors, Arts Education, Health and Physical Education and Work Education violates the mandate under the Schedule.

WRIT PETITION NO.7548 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO.7552 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO.8946 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO.10432 OF 2025 and WRIT PETITION NO.10433 OF 2025:

14. Through these writ petitions, the Headmasters of different schools have laid a challenge to the G.R.-2024 insofar as the same relates to the new staffing pattern. The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondent-Authorities to formulate a policy to comply with the provisions under section 25 of the RTE Act. Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned G.R. runs contrary to the object behind the RTE Act inasmuch as the future of the children living in small villages and hamlets would be destroyed if the number of

3. Sindhudurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal v. Union of India & Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6772. Page-16 teachers is reduced. The petitioners have provided the details of the possible reduction in number of teachers in a tabular chart and apprehend that in the garb of complying with the provisions under the RTE Act, the implementation of the impugned G.R. is likely to reduce the post of teachers in the schools. As a sample, we would extract the chart filed in Writ Petition No.8946 of 2025 which provides the details of reduction in posts of the teachers as under: - Sr. No. Name of the school Headmaster/ authorised person Reduction in posts of Teachers Headmaster Std. 1 to 5 Std. 6 to 8 Std.[9] to Total 1 Shri Haribhau Mhanwar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Karandwadi, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli. Mrs. Ujjwala Sunil Shingare - - - 3 3

4 Savitribai Jyotirao Phule Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ramanandnagar, Tal. Palus, Dist. Sangli Shri Subhash Mahadev Pathak - - 1 3 4

15. In the midst of hearing, a short counter-affidavit was filed by the School Education and Sport Department taking the following stand:-

24. Article 21 of the Constitution of India contemplates that the State shall make law. The RTE Act is child-centric and not institution-centric and the manner in which the obligation under the RTE Act shall be discharged by the State has been left to the State to be determined by law. Right to work is not recognized as a fundamental right and the State is not obliged to provide work for livelihood. This is under the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 41 of the Constitution of India that State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provisions for securing right to work. It is said that social inclusiveness is motto behind the RTE Act. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, even the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 and the other International Covenants/Conventions protect the rights of the children and such rights of the children bring in corresponding State obligation to respect, protect and fulfil realization of children’s rights. The expression “such manner” under Article 21A of the Constitution of India means the manner in which the State chooses to discharge its constitutional obligation.”

16. Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the RTE Act is student-centric and the G.R.-2024 maintains the Pupil-Teacher ratio. It is contended that the mandate under the RTE Act is being scrupulously followed by the School Education and Sports Department inasmuch as the number of teachers as indicated in the Schedule to the RTE Act shall not decrease by virtue of the G.R.-2024. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that a scheme for Page-19 rotational deployment and re-employment of the teachers has been devised under the G.R.-2024 so that surplus teachers are sent to the nearby schools, keeping in mind the additional requirements of the teachers in the nearby schools. This is the stand taken by the respondent-State in the affidavit filed in the present proceedings that surplus teachers shall be assigned to other schools where there is a deficiency of teachers and the apprehension raised on behalf of the petitioners that the surplus teachers shall be terminated from service is unfounded. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that this Court may not interfere with the G.R.-2024 and the other G.R.s in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, no statutory right of the teachers or the management of the schools leave alone any fundamental right is violated and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they have a legal right in law and corresponding duty on the Staterespondents which they have failed to perform.

17. Opposing the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad supported the stand taken by the School Education and Sport Department, State of Maharashtra and adopted the arguments made by Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, the learned Additional Government Pleader.

18. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, even the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 and the other International Covenants/Conventions protect the rights of the children and such rights of the children bring in corresponding State obligation to respect, protect and fulfill realization of the children’s rights. The RTE Act provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children upto the age of fourteen years. Two crucial expressions in the RTE Act, namely, “free” and “compulsory” manifest legislative intent to remove any financial barrier that prevents a Page-20 child from completing eight years of his schooling and the duty on the State to provide free education to the children. It is said that social inclusiveness is motto behind the RTE Act. Section 3 of the RTE Act provides that every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her elementary education. It further provides that no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing the elementary education. Section 6 imposes an obligation on the appropriate government and the local authority to establish a school within such areas or limits of the neighbourhood as may be prescribed. Where it is not so established under section 12 and the other provisions under the RTE Act, it is the duty of every recognized school imparting elementary education whether receiving any kind of aid or grant from the appropriate government or local authority to admit the children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of the class and to provide free and compulsory elementary education to them till its completion. Section 13 lays down that no school or person shall collect capitation fee while admitting a child or subject the child or his or her parents or guardian to any screening procedure. A duty is caste on all the schools even established prior to the commencing of the RTE Act that they must fulfill the norms and standards specified under sections 25 and 26 and the Schedule. The State has the authority to get rid of those schools which are non-performing or under-performing or non-compliant to the norms and standards. Upon closure of such schools, the students and nonteaching staff thereof are to be transferred to the neighbourhoold schools. Under section 18(3), the State has the authority to close down a particular division or the school itself and the students and staff of such schools shall be transferred to neighbourhood school. Page-21

19. The G.R.-2024 refers to the RTE Act and lays down the pattern for sanctioning the post of the teachers. For Class Ist to Class Vth, it provides that there shall be two posts of teachers if the total number of students exceeds half of 30, that is, 16 (15+1). It further provides that there shall be seven posts of teachers where the number of students is 210 and there shall be one additional post of the teacher for every 40 students if the total number of students goes beyond 210. Similarly, for the group of Class VIth, there shall be a provision of two teachers if the total number of students exceeds half of 35 students. However, if the number of students goes below the group number then the protected post shall be removed. One post of Headmaster in the primary and upper primary school is sanctioned in every school where the total strength of the students is 150 and the previously sanctioned post shall be protected if the minimum number of students in the school is 135. To test the validity of the G.R.-2024, we propose to make a comparative study of the said G.R. with the Schedule to the RTE Act. The G.R.-2024 reads as under: - GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION Taking into consideration the provisions made in Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the following norms are prescribed as to start new schools – Primary, Higher Primary and Secondary in the State, to decide posts of teachers based on number of students, to create posts, if in more students are in one class, then to grant teacher post,:-

1. Primary School – Primary and Higher Primary (Std. I to IV/V, Std. I to VII/VIII. Sr. No. Type of school Group Std group In school No. of Students group Admiss ible No. of Teache rs For sanction of admissible teachers minimum required strength of students Required minimum strength of students to protect previous sanctione d posts Minimum 1 teacher 1 to 20 no. of students, thereafter on second post Page-22 appointment of retired teacher as per requirement.

1 Primary school (std. 1 to IV/V) (std. I to VII/VIII). Std. I to V Std I to V (or any of the standard out of this 20 to 60 2 20 20 61 to 90 3 76 61 91 to 4 106 891 121 to 5 136 121 151 to 6 166 151 181 to 7 196 181 Upto 210 no. of students, as per norms of RTE one post is admissible for every 30 students. 211 to 8 231 210 onwards Upto 210 no. of students, as per norms of RTE one post is admissible for every 40 students If having any one of standard 10 to 35 1 10 10 36 to 70 2 53 36 71 to 3 88 71 onwards One post for every 135 students VI to VIII standard If having any of the two standard 20 to 2 20 20 71 to 3 88 71 onwar ds One post admissible for every 35 students. 141 If having three standard to 60 2 20 20 61 to 3 78 61 106 to 4 123 106 Page-23 to 5 158 onward s One post admissible for every 35 students 1.1In the group of std I to stnd V, for strength of students, as per norms of R.T.E., required strength of students is more than half of 30 i.e. (15+1) if 16 students, next post is admissible. 1.[2] In Std I to std IV group, number of student becomes less than group number, then the protected post will also be removed. 1.3In Std I to std. V. group, if student are more than 210, then while computing the admissible post, upto 210 students 7 teachers, and wc10 onwards i.e. for every 40 students, one post is admissible. 1.4In VI th to VIII group, as per norms of R.T.E. if the required number of students is more than half of 35 students, i.e. (17+1), then next post is admissible. 1.5for Std VI to VIII, group, for sanction of new post, the no. of students shown in table is required. 1.6In VI to VIII group, if the number of students reduced than required number, then protected post will also be removed. 1.7the concerned management while making available actual teacher shall take into consideration the programme of subject wise for students in a group of VI to VIII/.

1. Head Master posts (Primary and Higher Primary) (I STD TO IV TO V std or I to VII/VIII std. sr. no. Post Group Strength Admissible post as per norms For giving protection to earlier sanctioned posts, required minimum students

1 Head master Std I to Std IV/V 150 1 135 2 Head master Std I to Std VII/VIII 150 1 135 2.[1] If strength of student becomes as mentioned in the table, then independent Head Master post will be sanctioned. Sr. No. Type of school Group Std group in the school Group of no. of students Admissi ble posts Minimum required students for Required minimum strength of students for Page-24 sanction of admissibl e post sanction of earlier post. Secondary School (std. I to std. V,) (std. VIII to std. X) Std. 1 to std.V Std I to std. V or any of the Std. 20 to 30 1 20 20 31 to 60 2 46 31 61 to 90 3 76 61 91 to 120 4 106 91 121 to 150 5 136 121 151 to 180 6 166 151 181 to 210 7 196 189 1 post after every 30 students as per RTE upto 210 strength of students. 211 to 250 8 231 210 1 post admissible after every 40 students after 210 strength of students. If any one of the standard 20 to 35 1 20 20 36 to 70 2 53 36 71 to 175 3 88 71 onwards One post admissible for every 35 students. Std. VI to VIII If any of the two standard available 40 to 70 2 40 40 71 to 105 3 88 71 onwards One post admissible after every 35 students If three standard s are available 60 to 105 3 60 60 106 to 140 4 123 106 141 to 175 5 158 141 onwards One post admissible after every 35 students. Std. IX If any 20 to 60 1 20 20 Page-25 to Std X one of the standard is available in school 61 to 100 2 81 61 101 to 140 3 121 101 141 to 180 4 161 141 181 to 220 5 201 181 If both standard s are available and minimu m 20 students available 40 to 100 3 40 40 101 to 140 4 121 101 141 to 180 5 161 141 181 to 220 6 201 181 onwards After every 40 students one post is admissible.

3. Secondary School (group I to V/ group VI to VIII/std.IX to X 3.[1] for Std. I to V, for strength of students, as per R.T.E. norms, if more than half of 30 students i.e. (15+1) are available, next post is admissible. 3.[2] If the number of students are less than minimum strength of students, then protected post be removed. 3.[3] In I to V th std if number of students are more than 210, while computing the admissible posts, upto 210 students, 7 teachers and from 210 onward, for every 40 students one post admissible. 3.[4] In VI to VIII std. Group, as per norms of R.T.E., if more than half of 35 students i.e. (17+1), 18 students available, next post is admissible. 3.[5] for Std. VI to VIII group, for sanction of new post, minimum strength of students as shown in table is necessary. 3.[6] If the number of students are less than minimum strength of students, then protected post be removed. 3.[7] For Std. IX to X, if number of students are more than 220, for getting admissible next post, the strength of students should be more than half of 40 students, i.e. 21 students required.

3.8. The concerned management while making available the actual teacher, shall take into consideration the programme of subject wise for students in a group of VI to VIII.

4. Head Master/Deputy Head Master/Supervisor of the secondary school Sr. no. Type of school Post No. of students/teacher s post No. of posts

1 Std. I/V to std. X Std. I/V to Std. XII And Std. VIII to std. X Std. VIII to Std. XII students required 2 Deputy Head teachers posts required.

5 Supervisor 61 teachers posts required 4.[1] As per norms shown in table, if the post of Head Master becomes surplus, they shall be deployed in other schools of respective management. In entire district or in same management, if Head Master becomes surplus, they should be appointed on vacant post of teacher by protecting his pay. 4.[2] While sanctioning the posts of Deputy Head Master and Supervisor, the total strength of sanctioned teachers (aided, partly aided, unaided) will be taken into consideration. If any of post is decreasing, on the post of Deputy Head Master /Supervisor, if recognized employees working, then the concerned institution will deploy them and if for their deployment post is not vacant, they will be given protection till their retirement.

5. Special Teacher Secondary School. Sr. No. Type of school No. of students teacher (sports) (arts/music) Workexperien ce ICT Total special teachers. 1 (I to Xth) 251 to 500 1 post nil Nil 1 post 501 to 750 1 post 1 post 1 post 3 posts 751 to 2 posts 1 post 1 post 4 posts 1000 to 2 posts 2 posts 1 post 5 posts 1251 to 3 posts 2 posts 1 post 6 posts onwards 3 posts 2 posts 2 posts 7 posts

2 Std. VIII to std X 151 to 500 1 post Nil Nil 1 post 501 to 750 1 post 1 post 1 post 3 posts 751 to 2 posts 1 post 1 post 4 posts 1000 to 2 posts 2 posts 1 post 5 posts 1251 to 3 posts 2 posts 1 post 6 posts onwards 3 posts 2 posts 2 posts 7 posts Page-27

20. The Schedule to the RTE Act provides as under:- THE

1 Number of Teachers (a) For first class to fifth class Admitted Children Number of Teachers Up to sixty Two Between sixty-one to Three Ninety Between ninety-one to one hundred and twenty Four Between one hundred and twentyone to two hundred Five Above one hundred and fifty children Five plus one Head Teacher Above two hundred children Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) (excluding Head Teacher) shall not exceed forty (b) For six class to eighth class (1) At least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each for-

(i) Science and Mathematics;

(ii) Social Studies;

(iii) Languages

(2) At least one teacher for every thirty-five children (3) Where admissions exceed one hundred

(i) a full-time Head Teacher

(ii) Part-time instructors for:

(C) Work Education

21. The Schedule to the RTE Act provides the norms and standards for a school under which the number of teachers and Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) have been provided. On a comparison of the provisions for sanction of the posts of teachers under the G.R.-2024 and the number of teachers indicated in the Schedule, we observe that there is no conflict between the two. The G.R.-2024 doesn’t contravene or dilute the norms and standards provided under the Schedule in any manner whatsoever. The use of the Page-28 expression “up to” in serial no.1(a) of the Schedule is quite significant. It provides that if the number of admitted children for Class Ist is up to 60 then the number of teachers shall be two. By providing the minimum number of children as 20 in a primary school to become entitled for minimum one teacher, the G.R.-2024 seeks to offer better option to school management. The G.R.-2024 works out in favour of the school management insofar as it provides that if the required strength of the students goes beyond 15, that is, half of the prescribed strength of 30 then an additional post of teacher shall be appointed on contract basis. The G.R.-2024 seeks to provide better education to the children by providing two teachers in a school where the strength of students is between 20 to 60. There shall be a provision for three teachers in a school where the admitted number of children is between 61 to 90 and the minimum strength of the students is 76. This figure of 76 has been calculated by adding 16 students to the figure of 60 students which is the minimum strength of students required for two teachers. Similarly, where the required number of students is more than half of 35 students as per the RTE norms, that is to say, 18 students then an additional post of the teacher is made available. The G.R.- 2024 may not have a statutory force of law but it is legal and valid. The Schedule to the RTE Act does not provide the minimum strength of the students for maintaining the Pupil-Teacher ratio. By providing the minimum number of students for each category, the G.R.-2024 seeks to bring in more clarity for the smooth functioning of the RTE Act. The decision to fix the minimum number of students for opening a new school and for providing teacher/teachers depending on the strength of the students has been left to the State government and local authorities. Such a decision shall depend on several factors to be considered, such as, population in the area, availability of neighbourhood school, socio-economic background of the area and, more importantly, object behind the RTE Act. In case of the Headmaster, it is provided that a surplus Headmaster shall Page-29 be deployed in the other school of the same management. However, if the existing Headmaster in the entire district or in the same management becomes surplus then he is appointed on the vacant post of teacher and his pay is protected. A special teacher in the secondary school is also provided where the number of students goes beyond 250.

22. The RTE Act is child-centric and not institution-centric and the manner in which the obligation under the RTE Act shall be discharged by the State has been left to the State to determine by law. Right to work is not recognized as a fundamental right and the State is not obliged to provide work for livelihood. This is under the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 41 of the Constitution of India that State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provisions for securing right to work. Furthermore, the RTE Act does not restrict the child to seek admission in a school which is not in the neighbourhood of his residence. The idea of the neighbourhood school can be traced to the National System of Education as discussed and elaborated in the Kothari Commission Report. The “neighbourhood school” means any space where all children cutting across the caste, class and gender lines are imparted education in the best inclusive manner. The RTE Act does not define the limits or area of neighbourhood as a centralised norm and requires the appropriate government to notify such limits or area in the Rules framed thereto. This was a conscious and deliberate decision of the Parliament having regard to the diverse geography, climatic terrain and varied development requirements in different States that the limits or area of neighbourhood was not defined. This conscious decision seems to have its foundation in the fact that the States would be in a better place to define neighbourhood. In the Model RTE Rules, the Central government provided the distance norms of one kilometer for the children in Class Ist and three kilometer for the children in Class VIth. The Page-30 limitations under section 25 of the RTE Act are indicated in the clause 2 which says that the teacher shall not be deployed for non-academic work except for (i) decennial population census; (ii) disaster relief and (iii) elections to Parliament, State Legislatures and local bodies as provided under section 27. Section 35 of the RTE Act provides for the Central government to issue guidelines and provisions for the appropriate government and the local authorities for effective implementation of the provisions in the RTE Act. Rule 22 provides for maintaining the Pupil- Teacher ratio in each school for the purpose of section 25 of the RTE Act. Proviso to Rule 22 requires the Central government or the State government or the local authority to redeploy the teachers if a particular school has strength in excess of the sanctioned strength.

23. The law is well settled that the executive instructions issued by the government in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute the statutory provisions and/or the Rules framed thereunder. In “Sant Ram Sharma[4] ”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the government can fill up the gaps and supplement the Rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules, if any, on any particular point where the Rules are silent. However, the government cannot amend or supersede the statutory Rules by the administrative instructions. The government cannot also supplant or substitute the statutory Rules through the executive instructions. In “Sant Ram Sharma”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

24. In “Dr. Rajendra Singh”5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that no government order, notification or circular can be a substitute of the statutory Rules framed with the authority of law. There is, however, no prohibition or bar in law on the powers of the government to issue executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution of India with regard to the matters which are not provided in the statutory Rules but such executive instructions must remain confined to the sweep and scope of the statutory Rules. In “Paluri Ramakrishnaiah”6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the executive instructions can make a provision with regard to a matter which is not covered by the statutory Rules, provided such executive instructions do not seek to override any provision in the statutory Rules. We may also refer to the decision in “District Registrar Palghat”7 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

25. This is the general principle applied in service jurisprudence that the executive instructions and decisions would operate in the field in absence of

5. Dr. Rajendra Singh v. State of Punjab: (2001) 5 SCC 482.

6. Paluri Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India & Anr.: (1989) 2 SCC 541.

7. District Registrar Palghat & Ors. v. M. B. Koyakutti & Ors.: (1979) 2 SCC 150. Page-32 any statutory rules governing the field. The operation of the executive instructions extends to the field of promotions and even appointments to be made in the department. In “M. M. Dolichan”8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the government has power to issue administrative order governing the service conditions of its employees in absence of any statutory provision governing the field. In “Permian Basin Area Rate Cases”9, the Court held that the government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances. The decision of the government to issue the G.R.-2024 to lay down the guidelines for sanctioning the strength of teachers, Headmasters and other teachers is in furtherance of the constitutional goal to provide free education. In “Rajneesh Kumar Pandey”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the norms and standards specified in the Schedule regarding the Pupil-Teacher ratio are only to delineate the minimum benchmark and it does not put an embargo to the powers of the State government being the appropriate government to provide for a higher benchmark for ensuring quality education by the schools. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the school management is free to appoint more teachers on its own beyond the benchmark specified in the Schedule or by the appropriate government for imparting quality education to its students. A government decision is taken in view of the need for stimulating efficiency, to improve the management methods and to balance the growing needs etc. and its decisions can be faulted only where it is found that there is something in law which renders the government decision impermissible. Even in cases where the previous decision of the government on a particular issue receives approval of the Court, there is no bar in law on the exercise of powers by the government to bring in another executive instructions on the same matter or issue. Indeed,

8. M.M. Dolichan & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 151.

9. Permian Basin Area Rate Cases: 390 US 747 (1968). Page-33 the Courts would not enter into the realm of decision making which belongs to the executive.

26. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute itself and assume the role of a fact finding body. The High Court cannot also exercise its writ jurisdiction to conduct a roving enquiry to gather some facts which are not pleaded in the petition and only a vague suggestion is made by the petitioners. The exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be based on indisputable facts and not otherwise. The writ Court cannot interfere with an executive decision questioning the soundness and wisdom of such a decision. Like a policy decision, every executive decision is subject to judicial review on the limited grounds of non-compliance with the statutory or fundamental rights or where the executive decision is found lacking in bonafide or suffering from patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction. The judicial review of an executive decision does not touch upon its corretness, suitability or appropriatness. The Court does not become advisor to the executives to formulate a policy which they are entitled to formulate. This Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent- State to implement or not to implement a particular policy or a scheme on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. In “Balco Employees’ Union (Regd)”10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

10. Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333. Page-34

27. This is not correct to say that the government has no powers to assign ministerial works to any person or authority or agency/private agency to carry out ministerial work which is necessary for effecting the directions and mandate under the G.R.-2024. The proposed assignment of work to be carried out by the respondent no.7 does not impinge upon any of the powers and functions of the Zilla Parishads. The award of some of the ministerial works to the Zilla Parishad is intended to facilitate the smooth working of the G.R.-2024. This is also not correct to say that a teacher or a school gets unfettered right under the previous staffing pattern and can claim that the previous staffing pattern of 2024 must be adhered to. The provisions under the RTE Act and, more particularly, the provisions for maintaining the minimum number of teachers are intended to protect the right of the children to free education. This provision under the RTE Act cannot be stretched too far and to be construed as if the surplus teachers have a statutory right to remain in a particular school or on a particular post as assistant teacher or a graduate teacher. The observations made in “Avinash Mehrotra” is only with reference to liberty to the management of the school to keep or engage teachers beyond the minimum number indicated in the Schedule to the RTE Act. The observation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court seems to have been misconstrued by the petitioners who claim that they should remain in the same school because the government can provide more number of teachers. Looking at the scheme under the G.R.-2024 and the statement made on an affidavit by the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department that no teacher can be disengaged or terminated from service, we hold that the very foundation of laying challenge to the G.R.-2024 has crumbled. The apprehension raised by Mr.S. S. Pakale, the learned senior counsel that a large number of teachers may be terminated from service is clearly unfounded in view of the undertaking that the surplus teachers shall be transferred and engaged in the neighbourhood schools. The respondent-Department of School Education Page-35 and Sports has committed itself on affidavit that the mandate under section 25 of the RTE Act shall be strictly followed and, that, no teacher who may be declared surplus can be engaged in any other work except as provided under section 25.

28. The G.R. dated 23rd September 2024 has been issued with reference to the appointment of one retired teacher in a school where the total number of students is less than 10. The said G.R. provides that the eligible unemployed candidates holding D.Ed and B.Ed. qualifications shall be provided an opportunity to work on the post of teacher. It is provided that the minimum and maximum tenure of such a teacher shall be as per the government rules and such unemployed candidates shall be appointed on contractual basis and shall have no right to claim benefits of regular service. The G. R. dated 23rd September 2024 provides as under:- Government of Maharashtra Department of School Education and Sports Government Decision No. Miscellaneous- 2024/P.No.666/TNT-1 4th Floor, Extension Building, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032 Date:- 23rd September 2024. Read:-

1) Government Letter No. Sankirna 2023/P.No.362/ TNT-1, dt. 07.07.2023.

2) Government Decision No.SSN 2015/(P.No.16/15)/TNT-2, dated 15.03.2024.

3) Government Letter No. Sankirna 2024/P.No.414/TNT-1, dated 15.07.2024.

4) Government Decision No. Reg.2024/P.No.666/TNT-1, dated 05.09.2024. Preface:- In the state, provision has been made for one teacher out of two teachers appointed in schools with a strength of less than 10 to be a retired teacher. Accordingly, it is not necessary that retired teachers will be available in all schools with a low strength. Also, when the number of eligible unemployed candidates holding D.Ed and B.Ed qualifications is large in state, it would not be appropriate to appoint retired teachers. If Page-36 such an opportunity is given, the posts of teachers will not remain vacant and the educational progress of the students will not be affected. Also, eligible unemployed candidates holding D.Ed and B.Ed qualifications will get an opportunity to work in teaching posts. At present, the matter of giving appointment to eligible candidates holding D.Ed and B.Ed qualifications in schools with a strength of less than 10 was under the consideration of the government. Government Order:- The Government Resolution No.4 of the above mentioned Government Resolution dated 05.09.2024 regarding the appointment of one teacher out of the two approved teachers in schools with a strength of less than 20 in Local Government Institutions from among retired teachers or unemployed teachers, holding D.Ed, B.Ed qualifications is being repealed.

02. In schools of local government institutions with a strength of less than 10 students, one of the two approved posts of teachers will be filled by unemployed teacher candidates holding D.Ed, B.Ed qualifications. The provisions in this regard are being made as follows:

1. The minimum and maximum tenure as per Government Rules will be applicable for the said appointment.

2. Since the unemployed candidates holding D.Ed, B.Ed qualifications are given appointment on a contractual basis, the concerned will not have the right/entitlement to join/acquire service in any organization of the Government and to get any other benefits of regular service.

3. The initial period of appointment will be for one academic year. However, the appointment may be renewed annually for further periods as required on the basis of merit and suitability.

4. Remuneration Rs. 15,000/- per month (excluding any other benefits)

5. Total 12 leave entitlements (leave in excess of total leave entitlements will be unpaid).

6. There will be no administrative powers whatsoever.

7. It will be necessary to sign an agreement with the Education Officer (Primary) on behalf of the District Council.

8. Bond/Guarantee: Completion of the specified work of the teacher’s post on a contractual basis during the period of appointment. The responsibility of the concerned person to do so shall be borne by the person concerned. The bond/undertaking shall state that the terms and conditions specified by the Government while giving appointment on contract basis, the additional terms and conditions specified by the Department are acceptable and that no claim shall be made for regular service or any other right by the persons appointed on contract basis and that no objection shall be entertained if the competent authority terminates the service on contract basis before the expiry of the period mentioned in the contract in special circumstances.

9. Teaching hours will be as per other regular teachers.

10. The Education Officer (Primary) and Chief Executive officer, District Page-37 Council, concerned with each district, shall issue appointment orders by inviting applications from eligible and interested candidates.

11. The Commissioner (Education) may issue further instructions as required in connection with the said process should be done.

12. The Appointing Authority shall have the right to terminate the service on such contract basis at any time in exceptional circumstances.

13. If it is found that a teacher appointed on a contractual basis is not physically, mentally or healthily competent and does not have the necessary capacity for the proposed service, his contractual service will be terminated.

14. The persons appointed on contract basis shall be required to maintain confidentiality regarding the documents/information and supporting materials received by them.

15. The persons appointed on contract basis shall be required to complete the work assigned to them within the stipulated time period. The competent authority for appointment shall conduct a detailed review of their work and evaluate the work. In the said evaluation, the contractor if it is found that the teacher’s work is not satisfactory, his contract will be terminated immediately.

16. If the strength of the school exceeds 10, the service of the contractual teacher holding D.Ed and B.Ed qualifications appointed on a contractual basis will continue until the appointment of a regular teacher. The service of the contractual teacher will automatically terminate after the appointment of regular teachers.

17. A person appointed on contact basis shall not be engaged in any professional activity which may interfere with the performance of the assigned service.

18. A person employed on a contractual basis will be required to declare the financial relationships involved.

19. Out of two regular teachers working in local government schools with less than 10 students, one teacher shall be transferred to a school with a higher student body on a priority basis through counselling. In this, willingness of both the regular teachers shall be taken. If both the teachers are willing to be transferred, then the service teacher shall be given priority. Also, both the regular If the teacher is not willing to be transferred, the service teacher may be transferred. However, the regular teacher should not be transferred until the contract teacher is appointed.

20. The immediate control over such teachers appointed on contractual basis will be that of the Head of the Centre. Thereafter, it will be under the control of the Group Education Officer and Education Officer (Primary)

21. The guidelines issued as per the reference Government letter, dated 07.07.2023 and Government letter, dated 15.07.2024 will henceforth remain applicable to schools with a strength of more than 10. The remuneration to be paid for this will be Rs 15,000/- from the date of issuance of the said Government Decision. Page-38

22. The expenditure on the above matters shall be met from the sanctioned grant.

23. The provisions of the said Government Regulation shall be applicable only to the schools of local government bodies.

03. The said government decision has been made available on the website of the Government of Maharashtra www.maharashtra.gov.in and its code number is 202409231710300821. This government decision is being issued after being authenticated with a digital signature. By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra, Sd/- TUSHAR VASANT MAHAJAN Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra”

29. The G.R. dated 23rd September 2024 provides that the appointments shall be made for one year and that may be renewed for further period subject to merit and suitability of the candidate. It further provides that if the total number of students in a school exceeds 10 then the services of the contractual teacher shall automatically be terminated when appointment of regular teacher is made. This G.R. provides an additional teacher for the school where the total number of teachers is less than 10 and thus makes education more accessible to the children. It does not impinge upon the right of any teacher and addresses the issue of unemployment.

30. Merely because it is relatively a swift method of redressal of grievances, the avenue for writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the aggrieved teachers, Headmasters and Zilla Parishads. This is also not correct to say that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall lie because some right or protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been violated and, as a consequence thereof, civil consequences shall follow. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in cases where the substantive rights of a person flow from any statutory provision or from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India like the right to equality, equal pay for equal work, right to pension etc. are Page-39 claimed. The High Court has power to strike down a statutory provision, a statutory Rule or an executive instruction on the ground of want of authority but the High Court shall not sit in appeal over the decision of the Legislature or the executive unless it is demonstrated before the Court that such statutory provision or the executive instruction is patently arbitrary, illegal or mala fide. If the government or its instrumentality has acted fairly and the executive decision is applied uniformly across all sections of the similarly situated employees, the Court cannot interfere even if the government or its instrumentality seems to have faltered in wisdom. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to the question whether the administrative decision is fair and the procedural norms were substantially complied and not laced with unreasonableness. In a democratic set-up, the government has to deal with complex problems and the validity of an executive decision cannot be tested on any rigid a priori considerations or on the application of any straitjacket formula. In “Metropolis Theater Co.”11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United States observed that the problems of the government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical, it may be, and unscientific. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:- “The problem of Government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of Government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void.”

31. Writ Petition No.8754 of 2025, Writ Petition (ST) No.24468 of 2025 and Interim Application (ST) No. 2015[8] of 2025 are filed by the teachers who are seeking couple-convenience. An interim application is filed in Writ Petition No.5460 of 2025 (Interim Application (ST) No.2015[8] of 2025) by forty petitioners who are seeking a direction to the respondent-Zilla

11. Metropolis Theater Co. v. State of Chicago: 228 US 61 (1912). Page-40 Parishad and the Education Officer (Primary) to process their application for intra-district transfer as per clause 1.[9] read with clause 4.[3] of the G.R. dated 18th June 2024 so that they remain posted within the radius of 30 kilometer at a place where their spouses are working. In “Jagjit Singh Mehta”12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is desirable that the husband and wife are ordinarily and as far as practicable posted at the same station/place but that does not mean that the place of posting should be one of their choice. In “Jagjit Singh Mehta”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

32. The transfer of a government employee being an incidence of service and the decision thereto is a matter within the domain of the departmental Authority and the guidelines issued by the government in this regard are not legally enforceable right which flows from such guidelines to the government employee. The High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall interfere with an order where the order of transfer is vitiated by mala-fide or is found in complete violation of the statutory provisions for transfer. The G.R. dated 18th June 2024 lays down the procedure for transfer of the teachers in different stages. There are as many as seven stages which deal with different cadre of teachers including the Special Cadre Part-1 and the Special Cadre Part-2 teachers. The transfer of the Special Cadre Part-1 teachers provides that a list of the teachers eligible for transfer shall be prepared and the preference/options shall be taken from the teachers who are eligible for transfer. It provides that the Special Cadre Part-1 teachers shall be transferred only on their request. It further provides that the senior most teacher shall be first entitled for transfer in a Special Cadre Part-1 if there are more number of teachers seeking transfer. A similar procedure has been laid down for transfer of the Special Cadre Part-2 teachers. Clause 4.3.[4] provides that the G.R. dated 18th June 2024 for transfer of the employees shall be adopted in case of the husband and wife treating them as one unit. It is also provided under clause 4.3.[4] that the husband and wife both shall be treated eligible for transfer if any one of them is eligible for transfer. The transfer of teachers who are working in difficult areas are dealt with under the Stage-4. Clause 4.4.[3] lays down that the seniority of a teacher working in the difficult areas shall not be a ground to entertain the request for transfer and Page-46 those teachers shall be given preference who have undergone more period of actual service in difficult area. However, this needs to be kept in mind that the transfer policy does not confer any right to the teachers. In “S. L. Abbas”13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the guidelines for the posting of husband and wife at the same place do not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right. In “S. L. Abbas”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

33. In Writ Petition No.8754 of 2025, there are ninety-three teachers who are joined by the Maharashtra Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Pati Patni Seva Sangh as the co-petitioners. These teachers are seeking a direction to process their intra-district transfer applications keeping in mind the coupleconvenience envisaged under clause 1.[9] read with clause 4.[3] of the G.R. dated 18th June 2024. In Writ Petition (ST) No.24468 of 2025, there are twenty-seven teachers who are the petitioners. These teachers are also seeking a direction to process their intra-district transfer applications keeping in mind the couple-convenience envisaged under clause 1.[9] read with clause 4.[3] of the G.R. dated 18th June 2024. The apprehension of this group of teachers is that the policy under the G.R. dated 18th June 2024 which pertains to the Special Category Teachers is not being followed and the husband-wife teachers may not be posted within the radius of 30

13. Union of India & Ors. v. S. L. Abbas: (1993) 4 SCC 357. Page-47 kilometers. These writ petitions are purely speculative. There is nothing unusual or anything prescribed under the G.R. dated 18th June 2024 which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. The G.R. dated 18th June 2024 lays down a fair and transparent procedure which takes care of the interests of teachers posted in difficult areas and of those who are seeking couple-convenience. This is well remembered that the appointment of assistant teachers or graduate teachers is on a transferable post and their transfer or re-location from one school to another school does not result in any alteration of the service conditions to their disadvantage. This is a normal feature and incident of every government service that the graduate teachers may be transferred and they cannot claim to remain at a particular place or on a particular post. In “E.P. Royappa”14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the transfer is an implied condition of service and the appointing authority has wide discretion in the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter.The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colour-able exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is madc not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, that is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair.”

14. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1974) 4 SCC 3. Page-48

34. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following order is passed: (i). Writ Petition No.9276 of 2025 and Interim Application No. 24313 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.6213 of 2025 are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Authorities to follow the G.R. dated 15th February 2018 for deployment of female and male teachers who have crossed the age of 53 years and such teachers should not be deployed in the difficult areas as far as practicable. (ii). Writ Petition No. 8754 of 2025, Writ Petition (ST) No. 24468 of 2025 and Interim Application (ST) No.2015[8] of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 5460 of 2025 are disposed of with a direction to the respondent- Authorities to follow the instructions under the G.R. dated 18th June 2024 as far as practicable. Interim Application Nos.10267 of 2025, 25647 of 2025, and Interim Application (ST) No.21996 of 2025 are, accordingly, disposed of. (iii). The challenge laid to the G.R.-2024 fails and the writ petitions vide Writ Petition Nos. 5456 of 2025, 6028 of 2025, 7548 of 2025, 7552 of 2025, 8239 of 2025, 8753 of 2025, 8946 of 2025, 9977 of 2025, 10213 of 2025, 10432 of 2025, 10433 of 2025, 10470 of 2025, 10497 of 2025, 5759 of 2025, 6213 of 2025, 10321 of 2025, Writ Petition (ST) Nos. 15761 of 2025, 15782 of 2025, 13145 of 2025, 16603 of 2025 and Writ Petition (L) No.17362 of 2025 are dismissed. However, we observe that the respondent-Authorities shall not issue transfer orders after the cut-off date provided under the transfer policy, except in the administrative exigencies or under exceptional circumstances. (iv). Contempt Petition No. 412 of 2025 is dismissed. [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] Page-49

APPENDIX-I Appearances for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions:  Mr. S.S. Pakale, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saurabh Pakale and Mr. Nilesh Desai, Advocates for the Petitioner/s in WP/5456/2025, WP/6028/2025, WP/8239/2025, WP/8753/2025, WP/8754/2025, WP/9977/2025, WP/10213/2025, WP/10470/2025, WP/10497/ 2025, IA(ST)/20158/2025 in WP/5460/2025 and WP(ST)/ 24468/2025.  Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire, i/by Ms. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, Advocates for the Petitioner/s in WP/15761/2025 and WP(ST)/15782/2025.  Mr. Niranjan Bhavake with Ms. Drishti Madhani, Ms. Swamini Thakur, Mr. Anurag Ramekar, Advocates, i/b Bhavake & Associate, for the Petitioner in WP(ST)/16603/2025.  Mr. Balaji Shinde for the petitioner in WPST/13145/2025, WP/5759/2025 and CP/412/2025.  Mr. Shivkumar K. Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/6213/2025.  Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prashant Raul, Mr. Harsh Khot and Mr. Suraj Mhadgut, i/by Ms. Varsha M. Thorat, Advocates for the Petitioner/s in WP/7548/2025, WP/7552/2025, WP/8946/2025, WP/10432/2025 and WP/10433/2025.  Ms. Preeti Walimbe with Ms. Vaishnavi Nagargoje, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/9276/2025.  Mr. Balaji Shinde, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/10321/2025.  Mr. Sunil Gosavi, for the Applicant in IAST/25647/2 in WP/5456/2025. Appearances for the Respondents in all the Writ Petitions:  Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Ms. Gargi Warunjikar & Mr. Sagar Ambedkar, for Respondent No.1-UOI in WP (ST)/16603/2025 and CP/412/2025.  Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. Vinit Jain and Mr. Gaurav Mhatre, Advocates for the Respondent-UOI in WP/8239/2025 and WP/8753/2025.  Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis, Advocate for the Respondent - ZP, Pune in WP/5456/2025, WP(ST)/13145/2025, WP/5759/2025, WP/8239/ 2025, WP/8753/2025, WP/8754/2025, WP/9977/2025, WP/10213/2025, IA(ST)/2015[8] in WP/5460/2025 and WP(ST)/24468/2025.  Ms. Priyanka Chavan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.[5] and 6 – ZP, Solapur in WP/5456/2025.  Mr. Ajit M. Savagave, Advocate for Respondent Nos.[5] and 6 in WP/6028/2025 and for the Respondent-ZP, Palghar & CEO in WP/5456/2025.  Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.15 and 16 in WP/8754/2025 and for Respondent No.3 in WP/9276/202  Mr. C.G. Gavnekar a/w Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar & Mr. Rohit Parab for the Page-50 respondent – Z.P. Raigad.  Mr. Shrikant Dinkar Patil for the Respondent Nos.[8] and 9-ZP Ahilyanagar in WP/8754/2025. Appearances for the State of Maharashtra in WP/5456/2025, WP(ST)/13145/2025 with CP/412/2025, WP/5759/2025, WP/6213/2025, WP(ST)/15761/2025, WP/6028/2025, WP(ST)/15782/2025 and WP(ST)/16603/2025:  Mr. P. P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. S.B. Kalel, Assistant Government Pleader for the the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4.  Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Kushal Amin, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4.  Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. V.G. Badgujar, Assistant Government Pleader for the the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4.  Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader with Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4.  Ms. N. M. Mehra, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4.  Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4.  Mr. Sachit Bhogale ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.  Mrs. V.R. Raje, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4-State. Appearances for the State of Maharashtra in WP/8239/2025, WP/8753/2025, WP/8754/2025, WP/7548/2025, WP/7552/2025, WP/8946/2025, WP/8946/ 2025, WP/10470/2025, WP/8946/2025, WP/10470/2025, WP(ST)/24468/2025, WP/9276/2025, IA(ST)/20158/2025 in WP/5460/2025, WP/9977/2025, WP/10321/2025, WP/10432/2025, WP/10497/2025 and WP/10433/2025.  Mr. P.P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. Nisha M. Mehra, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.[1] to 5 – State of Maharashtra in WP/8239/2025, WP/8753/2025 and WP/8754/2025.  Ms. P.N. Diwan, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 in WP/7548/2025 and WP/7552/2025.  Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra in WP/8946/2025  Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. K.S. Thorat, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4-State of Maharashtra in WP/8946/2025 and WP/10470/2025. Page-51  Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. P.B. Chavan Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.[1] to 3-State of Maharashtra in WP/8946/2025, WP/1043210470/2025 and WP(ST)/ 24468/2025.  Ms. V.R. Raje, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-Nos. 1 and 2 - State of Maharashtra in WP/9276/2025.  Ms P.N. Diwan, AGP for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Writ Petition No.10213 of 2025.  Mr. Sachit Bhogale, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.[1] to 5 in WP/9977/2025.  Mr. S.B. Kalel, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4-State of Maharashtra in WP/10433/2025.  Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.GP a/w Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4.  Mr. S.S. Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Saurabh Pakale & Mr. Nilesh Desai, for the respondent Nos.[1] to 5 in WP/10497/2025. Appearance in ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.17362 of 2025:  Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Swanand Ganoo, Mr. Aditya