The Bombay High Court has clarified that a teacher appointed on an unaided post who successfully completes the mandatory two-year probation period under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, acquires regular status and cannot be denied transfer to a vacant aided post in the same institution on procedural grounds. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory regularization under the MEPS Act confers substantive rights that cannot be undermined by administrative delay or technical non-compliance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Petitioner No.1, a female teacher, was appointed as a full-time Shikshan Sevak on an unaided post in a private school managed by Petitioner No.2 with effect from 1st December 2014. The appointment was made in accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The terms of appointment included a two-year probationary period, which she completed satisfactorily by 30th November 2016.
Following the completion of probation, her services were deemed regular under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act. In the academic year 2019-2020, a sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher on an aided basis became vacant in the same school. Petitioner No.2 proposed the transfer of Petitioner No.1 to this aided post, and by order dated 20th July 2019, Respondent No.2 (the Education Department) approved the transfer but erroneously stated that the transfer was effective from 14th February 2019 - a date prior to the actual vacancy and proposal.
Despite the statutory regularization and the existence of a vacant aided post, the transfer was not formally implemented. The petitioners contended that the refusal to effect the transfer was contrary to settled law and violated their rights under the MEPS Act.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No.1 appointed as Shikshan Sevak on unaided post: 01.12.2014
- Probation period completed: 30.11.2016
- Vacant aided post of Assistant Teacher identified: Academic year 2019-2020
- Proposal for transfer submitted by Petitioner No.2: Before July 2019
- Order of approval issued by Respondent No.2: 20.07.2019 (but with incorrect effective date)
- Transfer not implemented despite approval
- No formal rejection of transfer proposal issued
- No alternative justification provided for non-implementation
Procedural History
- 20.07.2019: Approval order issued by Education Department
- 2023: Petitioners filed writ petition before Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench, Kolhapur) seeking direction to implement transfer
- 09.06.2026: Hearing before Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Nandesha S. Deshpande
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that upon successful completion of probation under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, the teacher acquires the status of a regular employee. Denial of transfer to a vacant aided post in the same institution, especially when the teacher is the senior-most on unaided post, is arbitrary and contrary to the spirit and letter of the MEPS Act and the precedent in Pramod s/o Prabhakar Pokale v. State of Maharashtra.
Respondent State: Did not dispute the completion of probation or the existence of the vacancy. Argued only that the proposal was not properly submitted and that the power to approve such transfers now rests with the Commissioner of Education, Pune, following a Government Resolution dated 13.11.2025.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A direction to treat Petitioner No.1 as transferred to the aided post of Assistant Teacher with effect from the date of vacancy (i.e., commencement of academic year 2019-2020)
- Payment of arrears of salary and allowances from the date of transfer
- Declaration that the refusal to implement the transfer was illegal and violative of statutory rights
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a teacher who has successfully completed the two-year probation period under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977 and acquired regular status on an unaided post can be denied transfer to a vacant aided post in the same institution on the ground of procedural irregularity or administrative delay.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the binding precedent in Pramod s/o Prabhakar Pokale v. State of Maharashtra (2019(4) Mh.L.J. 278), which held that once a teacher completes probation and is regularized under the MEPS Act, their status becomes that of a regular employee. The court in that case ruled that such a teacher cannot be treated as a fresh appointee when seeking transfer to an aided post. The petitioner argued that the approval order dated 20.07.2019 was sufficient to establish the legitimacy of the transfer, and the failure to implement it was arbitrary and contrary to statutory rights.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the factual matrix of regularization or the existence of the vacancy. Instead, it contended that the proposal for transfer was not properly documented and that, pursuant to Government Resolution dated 13.11.2025, the authority to approve such transfers now vests exclusively with the Commissioner of Education, Pune. The State argued that the matter must be referred afresh to the competent authority.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the judgment in Pramod s/o Prabhakar Pokale and found it directly applicable. The Court emphasized that the MEPS Act was enacted to ensure stability and dignity in the service of private school teachers, and that Section 5(2) was designed to convert contractual service into permanent status upon satisfactory completion of probation.
"There is no question of giving fresh appointment to such candidate who has already completed probation period of two years satisfactorily, or refusing approval to transfer of such candidate from unaided school to aided school run by the same institution."
The Court noted that the State’s reliance on the 2025 Government Resolution did not negate the rights already accrued under the MEPS Act. The resolution merely shifted the administrative authority for processing transfers; it did not extinguish the substantive rights of teachers who had already been regularized.
The Court further held that the approval order dated 20.07.2019, even if flawed in its effective date, constituted a prima facie recognition of the transfer’s validity. The failure to implement it could not be justified by procedural technicalities, especially when the teacher’s rights under the statute were clear.
The Court rejected the notion that the teacher must be treated as a new applicant. The transfer was not a fresh appointment but a reclassification within the same institutional framework, which the MEPS Act explicitly contemplates.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed Petitioner No.2 to submit a fresh proposal to the Commissioner of Education, Pune, with all necessary documents within two weeks. The Commissioner was directed to consider the proposal, along with the earlier approval order dated 20.07.2019 and the judgment in Pramod s/o Prabhakar Pokale, and decide the matter within eight weeks of receipt. The transfer shall be deemed effective from the commencement of the academic year 2019-2020, and arrears of salary and allowances shall be computed accordingly from that date.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regular Status Under MEPS Act Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must assert that completion of two-year probation under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act creates a vested right to regular status
- Any subsequent transfer to an aided post is not a new appointment but a reclassification - no fresh selection process can be imposed
- Denial of transfer on grounds of "improper proposal" is invalid if regularization is established
Administrative Shifts Cannot Override Statutory Rights
- Changes in administrative authority (e.g., delegation to Commissioner of Education) do not nullify rights accrued under statute
- Petitioners may invoke Pramod Pokale to challenge delays or refusals even after administrative restructuring
- The burden shifts to the State to justify non-implementation with substantive grounds, not procedural excuses
Transfer Must Be Backdated to Vacancy Date
- Where a vacancy exists and regularization is complete, the effective date of transfer must relate back to the start of the academic year or the date the vacancy arose
- Arrears of pay and allowances must be calculated from that date, not from the date of order or implementation
- Courts will not permit the State to benefit from its own inaction
