The intended meaning of Rules and Regulations in place can often be misunderstood to have only a specific, narrow application, however after careful analyzation, the application of the rule could be much wider. This was held in the judgment passed by a two bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. D. DHANUKA AND JUSTICE R.I.CHAGLA, in the matter of Namdev Tukaram Patil, Sharada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal V. The State of Maharashtra, The Education Officer dealt with an issue where the petitioner impugned the order that refused grant approval to the transfer of the Petitioner No.1 as a Peon (non-teaching employee) from un-aided School to aided.
On 15.06.2016, Petitioner No.2 transferred the Petitioner No.1 from the un-aided school to the aided school in the post of Peon. On 31.12.2016 the Head Master of the aided school submitted the proposal to Respondent No.2 for approval in respect of the said transfer. On 31.12.2017 the Respondent No.2 refused to grant approval to the said transfer of the Petitioner No.1 from unaided school to aided school.
The Counsel for the Petitioners, invited attention to various documents annexed with the Petition including order of approval granted by Respondent No.2 in respect of the appointment of the Petitioner as a Peon in the unaided school. Respondent No.2 refused to grant the approval.
The counsel for petitioner placed reliance on Rajaram S. Mandale and another vs. The State of Maharashtra. It is submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioners that Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981, would apply not only to teaching staff but also to nonteaching staff including the Peon.
The learned A.G.P. on the other hand submits that though in the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 the proposal of the Petitioner No.1 was rejected only on the ground that there is no such provision.
After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Bombay High court allowed the petition and directed to approve the transfer of the Petitioner and sanction the payment of monthly salary applicable to the said post from that date as a perusal of Rule 41 of M.E.P.S. Rules along with definition of employee under Section 2 (7) would clearly indicate that ‘employee’ means any member of the teaching and non-teaching of a recognized school. It was also held that, the Petitioner was holding post of Peon and was thus an employee within the meaning of employee under Section 2(7) read with Rule 41 of the M.E.P.S. Rules in accordance to the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajaram S. Mandale (supra). It held that Rule 41 applies to all employees, both teaching and non-teaching, as defined in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, of a recognized school. Rule 41, thus, permits transfer of teaching and as well as non-teaching staff of a recognized school. It was also held that the Respondent No.2 shall be required to comply with this order within six weeks from today.
