( 1 ) WP 1078/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2011 1 Shri Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Degloor, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded, Through its Secretary, Shri Sangram Bandappa Malge, Age 55 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Gojegaon, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded. PETITIONERS 2 Sadhana High School, Degloor, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded, Through its Headmaster, Shri Nilkanth Pandurangrao Yevtikar, Age 55 years, Occ : Service, R/o. Degloor, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. V E R S U S 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. RESPONDENTS 2 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, District Nanded. Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioners Shri B.V. Wagh, AGP for the respondents / State CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATED : 9th March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per A.V. Nirgude, J. ) 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Education Society, registered under Societies Registration Act and also a public trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, which runs petitioner No. 2 – High School. Petitioner No. 1 runs several schools, some of them are primary and some of them are ( 2 ) WP 1078/11 secondary, at different places. One Shri Prakash Laxmanrao Uttarwar was working as Headmaster of petitioner No. 2 – High School. He sought transfer on health ground to another school sometime prior to December, 2010. The management of petitioner No. 1 passed a resolution on 26th December, 2010 and ordered transfer of Shri Uttarwar as Headmaster of Madneshwar Vidyalaya Loni, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded and in his place one Shri N.P. Yevtikar, who was working as Headmaster of Madneshwar Vidyalaya, Loni, was transferred as Headmaster of petitioner No. 2 – High School. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 issued transfer orders on 30th December, 2010. Both the employees, mentioned above, immediately took charge of their new postings. Petitioner No. 1 then forwarded a proposal along with documents for grant of approval of transfers to respondent No. 2, as required by the provisions of MEPS Rules, 1981. But, respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 25th January, 2011, refused to grant approval to the transfers and directed the employees, mentioned above, to go back and take charge of their original postings. This petition is filed to challenge this order dated 25th January, 2011 and for issuance of appropriate writ to respondent No. 2 for granting required approval for the transfers, mentioned above. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we hold that the order of respondent No. 2 dated 25th January, 2011, deserves to be set aside and he should be directed to accord his sanction for the transfers of the employees of respondent No. 1. 3. On 25th January, 2011, admittedly, the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded, on Misc. Inquiry No. 227 of 2010 ( 3 ) WP 1078/11 and Inquiry No. 905 of 2010, under Section 41 (A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, was in force. This litigation arose because of dispute between two groups in the management of petitioner No. 1. The operative part of the Judgment of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 20th January, 2011, reads as under : “1. Application No. 227/10 and 905/10 are partly allowed. 2. Trustees as per Sch – I are directed to conduct the election. Subject to the order of Hon’ble Joint Charity Commissioner in Inq. No. 08/05, 09/05 and 10/05. 3. Trustees on Sch-I shall not take any policy decisions till the election. They shall not enroll members & shall not appoint any staff members till the election. 4. Trustees may apply to Hon’ble Joint Charity Commissioner u/s 47 to fill up the vacancy.” 4. Respondent No. 2 assumed that petitioner No. 1 had taken a policy decision when they transferred two employees, referred to above. The learned counsel for the petitioners rightly asserted that the resolution regarding transfers of the employees was not a policy decision. Indeed, the transfers effected by petitioner No. 1, vide a resolution dated 26th December, 2010 was part of routine of petitioner No. 1. It did not involve change in the policy of the Education Society. The resolution was innocuous in as much as both the affected employees accepted their orders and immediately marched to take charge of their new postings. There is nothing on record to show that due to this resolution, any change has occurred in the management of the Education Society / Public Trust. Respondent No.2 thus has committed an error while refusing his approval to the transfer orders. ( 4 ) WP 1078/11 The petition should therefore succeed. Rule is made absolute in terms of following order : ORDER i. The order dated 25th January, 2011, passed by respondent No. 2, stands set aside. ii. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue approval for the transfers effected vide resolution dated 26th December, 2010. ( A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ) ( D.B. BHOSALE, J. ) SRM/wp/1078/11/9/3/11ok