The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that procedural compliance under government circulars governing transfers to aided posts is not optional but mandatory. In quashing an order cancelling a teacher’s transfer approval, the Court emphasized that administrative discretion must yield to prescribed legal procedure, setting a clear standard for educational authorities across Maharashtra.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sunil Vasant Musale, was employed as a teacher in a non-aided educational institution. On 27.02.2025, the competent authority granted approval for his transfer from a non-aided post to an aided post, enabling him to be included in the 'Sevarth Pranali' system for salary disbursement through online mode. This approval was subsequently cancelled by Respondent No. 3 - Joint Director of Higher Education - by an order dated 24.03.2025, without providing any reasoned explanation or opportunity of hearing.
Key Facts
The petitioner was serving in a non-aided institution prior to the proposed transfer
Transfer approval was granted on 27.02.2025 by the concerned authority
The approval was cancelled on 24.03.2025 by the Joint Director of Higher Education
The cancellation was based on alleged non-compliance with Government Circular dated 26.08.2021
No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to cancellation
No opportunity to present his case was afforded
The petitioner’s name was removed from 'Sevarth Pranali', resulting in suspension of salary payments
Procedural History
27.02.2025: Approval granted for transfer from non-aided to aided post
24.03.2025: Order issued by Joint Director of Higher Education cancelling approval
15.04.2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 11996 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur
19.06.2026: Hearing concluded before Division Bench of Justices Milind N. Jadhav and Nandes S. Deshpande
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 24.03.2025, restoration of the transfer approval dated 27.02.2025, reinstatement in 'Sevarth Pranali' for salary disbursement, and directions to the authorities to process his transfer in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority may cancel a transfer approval granted under a government circular without following the procedure prescribed therein, and whether such cancellation without notice or hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Prasahnt Bhavake, Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the cancellation order was arbitrary, non-reasoned, and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on the Government Circular dated 26.08.2021, which mandates a transparent, documented process for transfers to aided posts, including verification of educational qualifications, experience, and availability of vacancies. He argued that the authority had no power to unilaterally cancel an approval already granted without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing or assigning specific reasons for non-compliance.
For the Respondent
Mr. V.M. Mali, Additional Government Pleader for the State, conceded that the Government Circular dated 26.08.2021 prescribes a procedure for transfers but contended that the approval granted on 27.02.2025 was issued in error and could be revoked. He did not dispute the absence of notice or hearing but argued that the authority retained inherent power to correct its own mistake.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Government Circular dated 26.08.2021 was issued with the express object of curbing irregularities in appointments and transfers to aided posts by ensuring strict adherence to prescribed norms. The Circular is not a mere guideline but a binding procedural mandate for all educational authorities.
"The object of the said Government Circular is to ensure that necessary procedure, inter alia, pertaining to consideration of educational qualification, experience etc is followed when such transfers are effected in order to curb litigation."
The Court held that once an approval is granted under the framework of a binding circular, it cannot be cancelled arbitrarily. The authority must follow the same procedural safeguards that were meant to prevent illegality in the first place. The cancellation order, devoid of reasons and without affording the petitioner a hearing, was found to be procedurally flawed and violative of natural justice.
The Court further noted that the State’s contention of "correcting an error" cannot override the requirement of due process. If the authority believed the approval was granted erroneously, it was obligated to initiate a proper inquiry, issue a show-cause notice, and provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner to respond - none of which was done.
The Verdict
The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.03.2025 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 - Joint Director of Higher Education - is directed to reconsider the grant of approval dated 27.02.2025 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Government Circular dated 26.08.2021. This reconsideration shall be completed within eight weeks from today, based on a server copy of this order, without further delay. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
Educational authorities must follow the exact procedure prescribed in Government Circulars for transfers to aided posts
Any deviation, even if claimed to be "corrective," requires adherence to principles of natural justice
Grant of approval under a circular cannot be revoked without notice, hearing, and reasoned order
No Automatic Revocation of Administrative Decisions
Administrative orders, once issued, acquire a degree of finality
Revocation must be preceded by a fair opportunity to be heard
Mere assertion of error is insufficient; the authority must demonstrate procedural non-compliance with evidence
Transfer Cases Require Documentary Scrutiny
All eligibility criteria under the Circular - educational qualifications, experience, vacancy availability - must be documented and verified
Oral submissions or subjective assessments cannot substitute for recorded compliance
Petitioners in similar cases may now invoke this judgment to challenge arbitrary cancellations
