Judgment : (1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. (2.) Petitioner who is working as a Head Master of a recognised private school, has challenged, by this petition, the order dated 28th May. 2010 transferring him from the post of Head Master of the High School at Saswad to the Head Master of the High School at Karkhel. The case of the petitioner is that the transfer order is contrary to the mandate of Rule 41 of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act. It is submitted that the transfers are generally prohibited by the rule unless they are required to be made for administrative reason, or as a consequence of promotion or where the employee himself makes the request for transfer. According to the petitioner in the present case none of the three exceptions exist, and therefore the petitioner cannot be transferred. (3.) Reply has been filed on behalf of the management and the only explanation given in the reply is that, as the petitioner has completed five years at Saswad he is being transferred. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 which admittedly is applicable, reads as under :- "Subject to the provisions of the Rule, the Management conducting more than one School shall not transfer any of its employees from one School to another except on administrative grounds, promotion or at the request of the employee concerned if it is administratively convenient to do so." (4.) Reading of this Rule makes it clear that the transfers of the employees of the recognised private school are generally prohibited. There are three exceptions to this general rule, which are as under :- (1) When the transfer becomes necessary on administrative grounds; (2) When employee is being promoted; (3) When employee himself requests for transfer. (5.) The language of the Rule 41 therefore impliedly prohibits there being any policy of the Management to periodically transfer its teachers. Such a policy would be contrary to the language and spirit of Rule 41. We thus find that as none of the exceptions laid down by sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 exist in the present case, the transfer order impugned in the petition is contrary to the provisions of Rule 41 and therefore the petition will have to be allowed. (6.) In the result, therefore, petition succeeds. We thus find that as none of the exceptions laid down by sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 exist in the present case, the transfer order impugned in the petition is contrary to the provisions of Rule 41 and therefore the petition will have to be allowed. (6.) In the result, therefore, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No order as to costs. Petition disposed of. (7.) In view of disposal of the petition, Civil Application No. 2723 of 2010 stands disposed of. Petition allowed.