1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5428/2008. Sau. Kalpanaj Jayant Kolarkar ..vs.. State of Mahara and others. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr.A.S.Chandurkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs.Bharti Dangre, AGP for respondents 1to 3. CORAM: D.D.SINHA and A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATE : 3rd March, 2009. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of non-grant of approval to the transfer of the petitioner from secondary school to Junior College of the concerned school in view of Government Resolution dated 28/4/1980 and 8/1/1980. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this issue is no more res 2 integra and is covered by the decision of this court dated 1/8/2008 passed in Writ Petition No.3416 of 2007. It is submitted that the present petitioner earlier approached this court by filing the above referred writ petition for redressal of the grievance against the communication dated 19/5/2007, whereby the approval granted to the petitioner as junior college teacher was rejected. It is contended that by order dated 1/8/2008 court has interpreted provisions of Rule 41 of the M.E.P.S. Rule and in para no.4 has observed thus - “In view of the above-referred rule, it is clear that the transfer of a secondary school teacher to junior college is prohibited only in a situation where the concerned teacher does not give the consent. In the instant case, the petitioner has in fact, given consent and, therefore, the order dated 19/5/2007 whereby the approval is refused cannot be sustained in law” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this court, therefore, set aside the order dated 19/5/2007 and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Director of Education for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval as junior college teacher in the light of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of 3 Private Schools (Conditions of service) Rules, 1981. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of the specific direction as well as law laid down by this court in order dated 1/8/2008, the Deputy Director of Education once again rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval by the impugned order dated 20/9/2008. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader, does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that this court by the earlier decision interpreted Rule 41 and also directed the Deputy Director of Education to reconsider the claim of petitioner for grant of approval in view of Rule 41. 6. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by respective counsel. It is really unfortunate that a responsible officer like Deputy Director of Education failed to apply his mind to the directions issued by this court by order dated 1/8/2008 passed in Writ Petition No.3416 of 2007. This court vide order dated 1/8/2008 specifically directed the Deputy Director to 4 consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval in terms of Rule 41, which was interpreted by this court, as reflected in the said order. However, the Deputy Director of Education for the reasons best known to him, did not take into consideration Rule 41 as well as observations made by us in the order dated 1/8/2008. We have already deprecated this approach of the Deputy Director of Education and want to express that if in future we come across such a obvious mistake if committed by the responsible Officer of the State Government, we will be constrained to impose exemplary costs on such Officer. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order dated 20/9/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Education to consider the same in the light of the direction aleready issued by us in the order dated 1/8/2008 in W.P.No.3416 of 2007 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 5