1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6507 OF 2008 DIST.: KOLHAPUR Aajara Mahal Shikshan Mandal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Amit Borkar for the Petitioner Mrs. M.P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondents No. 4 to 9. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI AND J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2008 P.C.:- The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, passed an order on 30th June, 2008, informing the Head Master of the high school run by the petitioner-Society that certain teachers had made complaints with regard to the transfers and therefore, he had declined to grant recognition to the proposal of transfers of teachers. The learned 2 counsel for the petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that this order was passed for extraneous reason, and the only reason to pass such an order was a letter written by the Minister concerned to the Deputy Director of Education on 21st June, 2008. The Minister wrote to the Deputy Director of Education that the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, be directed not to grant recognition to the said transfers. 2. Although it has been stated in the counter-affidavit, and it has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that the order of the Education Officer was passed on merits on the basis of the complaint received against the proposed transfers, the order reveals that it was passed as per directions given by the Deputy Director of Education by his letter dated 24th June, 2008, xerox copy of which was annexed with the order. The letter dated 24th June, 2008 clearly mentions that he was passing the order, as the Minister also had passed an order. The learned counsel have not been able to show that the Minister had any powers to direct the Deputy Director of Education not to grant recognition to the said transfers. The transfers are made under a statute, viz., the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools 3 Act, 1977. This Act does not give any power to the Minister concerned to interfere in the transfers. 3. Therefore, the order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order quashed. However, the Education Officer shall, after hearing the concerned parties, look into the complaint, if any, made before him, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks, uninfluenced by the opinion of the Minister concerned. BILAL NAZKI, J. J.H. BHATIA, J.