JUDGMENT Prasanna B. Varale, J. - The present petition was heard alongwith other connected petitions, however, for the sake of convenience, we are deciding each petition separately, though the facts and documents are common. 2. By the present writ petition, the following two basic reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner: (a) quashing and setting aside the order dated 19/03/2015, passed by respondent No.1 allowing the transfer of the school by name, Indira Prathmik Shala, run by respondent No.5- trust, from its original place Baijipura, Aurangabad to Wadgaon-Kolhati Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad and, (b) quashing and setting aside the order dated 19/02/2016 passed by respondent No.5/trust, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension . Rest of the prayers are interim prayers in the petition. 3. At the outset, it is necessary to note that by a statement made at the Bar, by Mr. Barlinge, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the challenge in the present petition was restricted in respect of transfer of the school from one place to another, which has been recorded by the Court in its order dated 24/10/2016, resultantly, learned Advocate Mr. Barlinge has restricted his arguments only to the challenge relating to the transfer of the school. 4. The petitioner claims to be appointed in the school run by respondent No.5 as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1993 against the permanent and clear vacancy in the primary school and claims to have been promoted on the post of Headmistress in the year 1998, in which post she claims to have been functioning till her suspension on 19/02/2016. 5. The petitioner claims that respondent No.5 /trust, which was running the school under the name, Indira Primary School, at Baijipura, Aurangabad, by misleading the authorities, sought transfer of the school to Wadgaon-Kolhati Tahsil and Dist. Aurangabad, by keeping the employees in dark. She also submits that this transfer was contrary to the Govt. Resolution dated 31/07/2013 and the transfer was opposed by her as well as other employees. She further contends that by the impugned order dated 19/03/2015, transfer of the school from Baijipura, Aurangabad, to Wadgaon-Kolhati was permitted by respondent No.1 under certain conditions, of which condition No. 10 indicates that in case there will be complaints about the transfer of the school, the transfer would be canceled. It is further stated that in pursuance to the order dated 19/03/2015, respondent No.3, Dy. It is further stated that in pursuance to the order dated 19/03/2015, respondent No.3, Dy. Director of Education, Aurangabad, vide his letter dated 22/05/2015, directed respondent No.4 Education Officer (Primary) to take appropriate steps as per the transfer order dated 19/03/2015, in pursuance to which respondent No.4/Education Officer, vide his letter dated 03/09/2015, informed respondent No.5/trust about the above decision permitting the transfer. It is further contended that respondent No.5/trust also got the name of the school changed from Indira Primary School, Baijipura, Aurangabad, to Dnyanganga Public School, Baijipura, Aurangabad, as communicated by respondent No.4/Education Officer, vide his letter dated 14/02/2015. 6. It is further contended that the distance between Baijipura, Aurangabad and Wadgaon-Kolhati is 22 Kms. and such a transfer was not permissible under the terms of the Government Resolution, dated 31/07/2013, as a result of which, the petitioner and other employees had made various complaints to the authorities, which are fled at Exh. ''F'' collectively, on the receipt of which, respondent No.3/Dy. Director of Education, Vide his letters dated 21/10/2015 and 23/02/2016 informed Respt. No.4/Education Officer to take necessary steps. It is, thus, contended that when respondent No.5/trust realized that the petitioner was obstructing the transfer of the school to Wadgaon- Kolhati, it decided to hold an inquiry against the petitioner by leveling false charges and a chargesheet was issued to her, and pending enquiry, by a letter dated 19/02/2016, she was placed under suspension, in which letter it has been mentioned that the headquarters of the petitioner would be Dnyanganga Public School, Wadgaon-Kolhati Dist. Aurangabad. It was then submitted that since the transfer of the school itself was illegal, there was no reason why the petitioner should be forced to join at the place of the transfer. There are then certain allegations regarding the order of suspension, however, since the plea has been given up, as recorded in the order dated 24/10/2016, we are not considering the same. It is in this context that the petitioner prays that the transfer order of the school dated 19/03/2015 be quashed and set aside. 7. The said petition is opposed by respondent No.5/trust by fling reply, wherein it has been contended that on 16/05/2014 respondent No.5/trust had submitted an application for shifting the above school, as indicated above, which proposal was forwarded by respondent No.4/Education Officer, to whom it was submitted, to respondent No.3/Dy. 7. The said petition is opposed by respondent No.5/trust by fling reply, wherein it has been contended that on 16/05/2014 respondent No.5/trust had submitted an application for shifting the above school, as indicated above, which proposal was forwarded by respondent No.4/Education Officer, to whom it was submitted, to respondent No.3/Dy. Director Education on 07/06/2014, who in turn had on 11/07/2014 forwarded the same to the State Government/respondent No.1. The said proposal was scrutinized and sanctioned by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, in Education Department, vide order dated 19/03/2015. The proposal for shifting of the school was signed by the petitioner as well as other employees of the said school, who had given their consent for the same. So also, concerned parents had also given consent for shifting, consequent to which, in pursuance to order dated 19/03/2015, the school was shifted from Baijipura, Aurangabad, to Wadgaon-Kolhati and the students were accommodated in the neighbouring school in Baijipura, by name, Amar High School. It was, thus, submitted that the petitioner was well aware about the transfer of the school and, in fact, she herself had written a letter to the Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad, and requested it to provide amenities of "Shaleya Poshan Aahar" at the transferred place. It is then contended that since surplus employees were absent in the school at Wadgaon-Kolhati, whose salary bills were illegally submitted by keeping respondent No.5 in dark, which came to be sanctioned, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, pending which she was placed under suspension. It is further submitted that some of the employees had written a letter on 31/05/2016 to respondent No.4/Education Officer admitting that all employees have given consent for shifting of the school and they have no grievance in that regard. It was further contended that the distance criteria is a matter of convenience and discretion of the Government and, in fact, more than 30 alike schools had been permitted to shift/transfer by the State Government beyond the distances, as enumerated in the Govt. Resolution dated 31/07/2013. Various other submissions have been made in respect of the conduct and actions of the petitioner, leading to the action on the part of respondent No.5/management to suspend her, however, these are not being enumerated herein in detail for the reason already stated that during the course of arguments, learned Counsel Mr. Resolution dated 31/07/2013. Various other submissions have been made in respect of the conduct and actions of the petitioner, leading to the action on the part of respondent No.5/management to suspend her, however, these are not being enumerated herein in detail for the reason already stated that during the course of arguments, learned Counsel Mr. Barlinge for the petitioner restricted his arguments to the transfer of the school alone and did not advance any argument in respect of the suspension order at all. 8. Respondents No.1 & 3 have fled their reply on 06/06/2017, wherein they justifed the order of transfer of the school by stating that respondent No.4/Education Officer after verifying the documents, submitted a positive report recommending the transfer, which is annexed as Exh. R.1 to their reply, which in turn, was verifed by respondent No.3, in pursuance to which, order dated 19/03/2015 came to be passed. It is further stated that consequent to the order of transfer, the school has started its functioning at the transferred place and students are taking education at the said school. It has been further stated that though the distance between the old place and the new place was about 20 to 22 Kms., but taking into consideration the infrastructure of the school and being within taluka and considering that the students of that area will be benefted, the school has been transferred, as there was need of a school in that area, which was an industrial area. It was also contended that a school by name Amar High School, was already functioning in Baijipura, which was already catering to the needs of the students of the area and, thus, there was no need for another school in Baijipura. It was also submitted that the Building, which housed the school in Baijipura, had become dilapidated and ruinous and to continue to accommodate the children in such a structure was playing with their safety and lives, as against which, the school at Wadgaon-Kolhati was newly constructed and did not pose any such safety issue. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition was without any merit and be dismissed. 9. Respondent No.4 has also fled his reply on 07/04/2017, in which he refers the report by the Committee dated 02/05/2016, which contends that the transfer of the school was not in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 31/07/2013. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition was without any merit and be dismissed. 9. Respondent No.4 has also fled his reply on 07/04/2017, in which he refers the report by the Committee dated 02/05/2016, which contends that the transfer of the school was not in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 31/07/2013. He further refers to a report dated 08/06/2016, in which surprisingly it is stated that the petitioner inspite of the order of transfer dated 19/03/2015, on his visit at Baijipura, Aurangabad, was found to be present in the old school alongwith Smt. Vidya Rangnath Patharwalkar, Amiroddin Misabaheddin Siddiqui (Jr. Clerk), Santosh Girjanath Ingle (Peon), which would indicate that these persons, which included the petitioner, had not joined the school at the place where it was transferred i.e. Wadgaon-Kolhati, even as on 08/06/2016, the date of report of the then Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. This report further states that on the same date out of the sanctioned strength of 97 students, as many as 81 students were present in the various classes, being run in the transferred school at Wadgaon-Kolhati. The report further surprisingly states that on a visit to the school at Baijipura, Aurangabad, on 07/04/2016, out of the total sanctioned strength 181 in the various classes from standard I to VII, a total number of 171 students were present. The reply then goes on to state that the transfer was contrary to the terms of the Govt. Resolution dated 31/07/2013 and, therefore, it would be appropriate to withdraw the recognition of the school. 10. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. S.R. Barlinge for the petitioner, who as already stated above, addressed us only on the point of transfer of the school. We also heard Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents No.1 to 4, Mr. S.M. Gunjal, learned Advocate holding for Adv. Mr. Dilip Patil-Bankar, appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, learned Counsel for appearing for respondent No.5/Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha. The Arguments of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, were in consonance to the replies fled by them. We have also heard Mr. V.J.Dhage, learned Counsel for the applicants in C.A. No. 11106/2016, who has adopted the arguments of the petitioner in relation to the so called dispute in the management. 11. The Arguments of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, were in consonance to the replies fled by them. We have also heard Mr. V.J.Dhage, learned Counsel for the applicants in C.A. No. 11106/2016, who has adopted the arguments of the petitioner in relation to the so called dispute in the management. 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record and given an anxious consideration to the arguments advanced, and the original fle as submitted for our perusal, we fnd that the proposal for transfer of the school was submitted by the respondent No.5 in the appropriate format under covering letter dated 07/06/2014, from Baijipura to Wadgaon-Kolhati. The distance was incorrectly stated as being one kilometer, which was noticed to be incorrect, it was, however, found that the existing building housing the school at new Baijipura, Aurangabad had become old and dilapidated, as refected from the photographs annexed to the proposal, as against which, the building in which the school was proposed to be shifted was in a good condition, having all the necessary civic amenities and was situated. It was further found that though the place at which the school was proposed to be shifted, was not within expanded parameters, however, the area was located in an industrial locality in which there was a need for a primary school. It was further found that the teachers as well as the parents of the students, had no objection for such transfer, in view of which the permission sought, was granted. 12. In so far as the contention that the petitioner and other teachers of the school had not consented to the transfer, the same clearly appears to be incorrect for the reason the consent letter of the teachers of the school, as submitted to the department recording their consent for transfer, bears the signature of the petitioner at Sr.No.1 itself as well as the signatures of the other teachers and non-teaching staf too. The wordings of the consent letter being material, are quoted as under :- That apart, the petitioner being the Head Mistress, herself, had given an individual consent letter under her signature for the transfer of the school, which consent reads as under : A number of documents annexed with the proposal for transfer such as : (I) the certifcate, certifying that Wadgaon-Kolhati was an Industrial area and as per its population, there is requirement of a school and Indira Primary School if situated in the locality, the students would be benefted and, therefore, there is no objection for transfer of the school; (II)The statement regarding the attendance for the academic year 2013-2014 (III) The consent regarding absorption of the teachers in the existing school at Aurangabad in the school at the proposed place of transfer. (IV) The list of study material / articles in the school. (V) The minutes of the meeting held with the parents of the students, dated 14/02/2015, whereby the resolution was passed for absorption of the existing students in Indira Primary School at Baijipura, due to its transfer, in Amar Primary School at Baijipura; all are signed by the petitioner in her capacity as the Headmistress of the school, as is revealed from perusal of the fle. This being the situation, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the transfer of the school was without her consent. In fact, this would indicate that not only the petitioner had given her consent for transfer of the school but, in fact, was actively engaged in the preparation of the proposal submitted for transfer of the school and even thereafter. The petitioner, therefore, now cannot be permitted to turn around and take a stand to the contrary as she is estopped by her conduct from doing so. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate, once having actively participated in preparation of the proposal for transfer and taken steps to ensure that the proposal would go through, turning around and saying that the proposal did not have her consent or for that matter the consent of the other teachers or the staf of the school, that too, in the light of the documents signed by her, is an action, which can only be said to be malafde in intent. This is further substantiated from the fact, as disclosed from the so called inspection report dated 02/05/2016, in which it is stated that the petitioner had worked for some period of time in the transferred school at Wadgaon-Kolhati. The petitioner, therefore, once having consented for the transfer of the school and had performed actions, in consonance with such consent, is, thus, estopped from challenging the transfer order. 13. The issue in so far as the distance is concerned, it is an admitted position on record that the distance between the school, which was run earlier at Baijipura, Aurangabad, and where it is presently being run, is approximately 22 kms. which is obviously, beyond the area as contemplated in clause 2(ii) of the Govt. Resolution dated 31/07/2013. The purpose and intent of the Govtg. Resolution, is to ensure that a school is available to the students of the locality and they may not be required to travel a larger distance to reach the school as is apparent from para 4 of the said Gpvt. Resolution. It is further enumerated therein that while considering the application for transfer, the interest of the students should be of paramount importance, which ought not to sufer, as gaining basic education has been made a statutory right under the Right to Education Act, 2009. The distance limited for transfer, therefore, have to be viewed in light of the purpose and intent for enacting the Government Resolution. 14. In the present case, it is an admitted position that there is an already existing school at Baijpura, Aurangabad, by name, Amar Primary School and the students of the Indira Primary School, those who wanted admission, have already been granted admission in Amar Primary School. The parents of the students had also consented for such a transfer. Teachers as well as non-teaching staf had also consented to such transfer. There was a requirement of a school at Wadgaon-Kolhati. The existing building at school at Baijipura had become dilapidated, which was obviously raising an issue as to the safety of the children studying therein, all of which factors were considered by the respondents 1 to 3 while considering the proposal for transfer. 15. There was a requirement of a school at Wadgaon-Kolhati. The existing building at school at Baijipura had become dilapidated, which was obviously raising an issue as to the safety of the children studying therein, all of which factors were considered by the respondents 1 to 3 while considering the proposal for transfer. 15. That apart, it has been brought to our notice that consequent to the GR dated 31/07/13, the State Government itself has permitted transfer of the schools beyond the distance limits as contained therein which is refected from the chart at Exh.X-4/pg.137 as placed on record by the respondent No.5 in which, the schools listed at Sr.Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18 to 24 and 27 have been permitted to be transferred not only beyond the distance limits as contained in GR dated 13/07/2013, but also in other districts too. This position has neither been controverted by the petitioner nor the respondents 1 to 4, in light of which it can safely be said that the distance limit as contained in GR dated 31/07/13, have not been acted upon by the respondents 1 to 3 themselves, who have thus considered the same as merely indicative and not of a mandatory character. 16. In the light of above position, we fnd that the challenge to the transfer of the school at the behest of the petitioner, is clearly not only an afterthought, but is also malafde, as it is the petitioner, as is apparent from the record, who has consented to the transfer, has acted in consonance thereof, has also joined the school for some time at the transferred place and thereafter, who has now turned around and not only started objecting to the transfer, but has outrightly challenged the same. The petitioner being signatory to the documents annexed with the transfer was throughout aware of the transfer being proposed and efected and was, in fact, instrumental in holding the parents meet to ensure that the transfer goes smoothly, as against which, the petitioner has subsequently created a situation, as if the school has not been transferred at all and is functioning at the old premises, which situation is clearly being brought about on record with the active assistance of the Education Officer/respondent No.4 and the Officers under him. It is inconceivable that once the school stood transferred to WadgaonKolhati by virtue of order of transfer, as passed by the State Government dated 19/03/2015 and some of the teaching as well as non-teaching staf, including the petitioner had joined the services at the transferred location, where the students were being imparted education, the school at the original place at Baijipura, Aurangabad could continue to function. The documents indicating the continued functioning of the school at its old place at Baijipura, Aurangabad, in spite of order of the transfer and the actual shifting of the school and its working at Wadgaon-Kolhati, as placed on record by the petitioner, clearly appear to be created and brought into existence by the petitioner, with the active assistance of the respondent No.4 as well as his subordinates, who were well aware of the existence of the order of transfer dated 19/03/2015 and the functioning of the school at the transferred place, which is refected from the inspection report dated 02/05/2016. This being the position, the petition is clearly without any merits and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 17. As we have considered in detail the arguments advanced on the so called dispute in the management of the petitioner-trust and the documents in relation thereto, the civil application No. 11106/2016 no longer survives for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.