JUDGMENT M.G. Sewlikar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking the relief of quashing of order dated 26th March, 2019 passed by respondent No. 4 canceling transfer of the petitioner as Shikshan Sewak from unaided to aided school and order dated 17th September, 2019 transferring respondent No. 3 as Shikshan Sewak from unaided school to aided school. 4. Facts as set out in the petition are that the qualifications of the petitioner are B.A., B.Ed. and M.A. Respondent No. 1 is the school of which respondent No. 2 is the Head Master. Respondent No. 4 is the Education Officer. 5. It is contended in the petition that respondent No. 1 runs the school from 5th to 10th standards. The school has one division from 5th to 10th standards on grant-in-aid basis and another division on non-grant basis. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 2013 in unaided school. Petitioner teaches Marathi subject to 9th and 10th standards. 6. It is also contended in the petition that one Kishor Shankar Patil, an Assistant Teacher in aided school died in an accident on 12th April, 2015. Being the teacher of Marathi subject, respondent No. 1 transferred the petitioner in the vacant post created on account of death of said Kishor Patil. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 submitted proposal to respondent No. 4 for approval. Respondent No. 4 - Education Officer accorded his approval vide order dated 06th November, 2018 for the appointment of petitioner as Shikshan Sewak. 7. It is further contended that respondent No. 3 who holds B.A. and B.Ed. Degree in Hindi and Politics was also appointed by respondent No. 1 in unaided school as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 16th February, 2013. Respondent No. 1 teaches subject Hindi. Respondent No. 1, because of the threats given by respondent No. 3 forwarded the proposal of respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 4 for approval to the transfer of respondent No. 3 as Shikshan Sewak. Respondent No. 4-Education Officer by order dated 26th March, 2019 revoked the order dated 06th November, 2018 whereby petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sewak and, accorded approval of the even date i.e. 26th March, 2019 to the transfer and appointment of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4-Education Officer by order dated 26th March, 2019 revoked the order dated 06th November, 2018 whereby petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sewak and, accorded approval of the even date i.e. 26th March, 2019 to the transfer and appointment of respondent No. 3. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 26th March, 2019. 8. This Court (Coram : Hon'ble Shri P.B. Varale and Hon'ble Shri N.W. Sambre, JJ) on 26th April, 2019 passed the following order :- 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we hardly see any reason to be refected in the said order. The order itself speaks of an arbitrariness and high handed exercise of powers by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 7. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondent - Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, who has passed the aforesaid impugned order dated 26th March, 2019, to file his personal affdavit explaining and justifying the passing of the said impugned order. 8. We also expect that the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon shall also explain what prompted him not to hear the petitioner before passing the order of cancellation of transfer, which was already awarded in his favour. 9. It is further clarified that the Education Officer must explain as to what prompted him in the matter not to pass any reasoned/speaking order. 10. Till the returnable date, the impugned order dated 26th March, 2019 is stayed. 11. Needless to clarify that in case, if this Court is not satisfied with the explanation by the Education Officer, this Court will be constrained to pass an order of recovery of salary payable to the petitioner from the salary of the Education Officer. 9. It appears that after this order was communicated to respondent No. 4, respondent No. 4 issued notices to the petitioner and respondents for rehearing on the proposal for appointment of respondent No. 3 as Shikshan Sewak. Petitioner recorded her presence and submitted written explanation along with necessary documents. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also appeared and tendered written explanation. Petitioner by communication dated 01.10.2019 communicated to respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 that this issue was sub-judice before this Court and the order dated 26th March, 2019 was stayed and, it was not proper on the part of respondent No. 4 to proceed with the hearing of the matter under consideration before this Court. Petitioner by communication dated 01.10.2019 communicated to respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 that this issue was sub-judice before this Court and the order dated 26th March, 2019 was stayed and, it was not proper on the part of respondent No. 4 to proceed with the hearing of the matter under consideration before this Court. Notwithstanding the same, respondent No. 4 passed the order dated 17th September, 2019 confirming the order dated 26th March, 2019 whereby the order in favour of the petitioner dated 6th November, 2018 was cancelled and on the same day order according approval to the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Shikshan Sewak was passed. Accordingly, petitioner amended the writ petition and sought the relief of quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th September, 2019. 10. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have fled affidavit-in-reply. It is contended in the affidavit-in-reply that the post of Assistant Teacher teaching Marathi subject had fallen vacant on account of death of Assistant Teacher, Kishor Patil. It is further contended that no teacher was available for teaching Marathi subject and, therefore, the petitioner was transferred from unaided to aided school. 11. Respondent No. 3 has fled his affidavit-in-reply. It is contended in the affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 3 that initially, the management had forwarded two proposals; one in the name of the present petitioner and another in the name of respondent No. 3. After receiving two proposals for one post, respondent No. 4 directed the management to submit only one proposal for the said post. It is contended that the Secretary of the School Management who happens to be the father-in-law of the petitioner, forwarded the proposal of the petitioner to respondent No. 4 and this is how the petitioner came to be transferred as Shikshan Sewak from unaided school to aided school. It is further contended that petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed on the same day but respondent No. 3 is senior to petitioner and, therefore, respondent No. 3 ought to have been transferred to aided school from unaided school in view of Government Circular dated 28th June, 2016. It is contended that respondent No. 4 gave hearing to all the concerned parties and accordingly, respondent No. 3 was accorded approval when it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 4 - Education Officer that respondent No. 3 was senior to petitioner. It is contended that respondent No. 4 gave hearing to all the concerned parties and accordingly, respondent No. 3 was accorded approval when it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 4 - Education Officer that respondent No. 3 was senior to petitioner. Thus, transfer of respondent No. 3 from unaided school to aided school on the vacant post is in accordance with law. 12. Respondent No. 4 has fled his affidavit-in-reply. It is contended that in accordance with the proposal forwarded by the Management, petitioner came to be transferred to aided school from unaided school. Respondent No. 3 made complaint alleging therein that he was senior to petitioner. When respondent No. 4 scrutinised the proposal, he cancelled the order dated 06th November, 2018 and passed the order of transfer of respondent No. 3 from unaided to aided school. It is further contended that respondent No. 4, after hearing all the concerned parties, passed the order dated 26th March, 2019. 13. We have heard Mr. Sangeet, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Choudhary, learned AGP for respondents No. 4 and 5, Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and, Mr. Dheple, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 14. Learned counsel Mr. Sangeet submitted that petitioner holds a degree of B.A. B.Ed. in Marathi and History whereas respondent No. 3 holds a degree of B.A. B.Ed. in Hindi and History. Late Kishor Patil, Assistant Teacher in aided school, was teaching Marathi subject. On the vacant post created due to the sad demise of said Kishor Patil, petitioner was transferred from unaided to aided school vide the order dated 6th November, 2018. Without hearing the petitioner, respondent No. 4 - Education Officer revoked the order dated 06.11.2018 transferring the petitioner from unaided to aided school and accorded approval for transfer of respondent No. 3 from unaided to aided school. He submitted that the post which had fallen vacant was of Marathi subject and transfer from unaided to aided school ought to have been of a teacher teaching Marathi subject. Respondent No. 3 is not teacher of Marathi subject but he teaches Hindi subject. Therefore, respondent No. 3 could not have been appointed in the vacancy created due to the sad demise of Kishor Patil. Respondent No. 3 is not teacher of Marathi subject but he teaches Hindi subject. Therefore, respondent No. 3 could not have been appointed in the vacancy created due to the sad demise of Kishor Patil. He submitted that respondent No.4 being a quasi-judicial authority, has no power of review and without hearing the petitioner he reviewed the order dated 16th November, 2018 and passed the order dated 26th March, 2019. He further submitted that seniority is not a criteria for being transferred from unaided to aided school but the requirement of the subject is the sole consideration. He submitted that respondent No. 4 did not consider this aspect of the matter and had passed the impugned order arbitrarily. Learned counsel Mr. Sangeet produced a copy of Notification dated 08th June, 2020 indicating therein that Rule 41A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 has been amended and the criteria for transfer from unaided to aided school is seniority and the requirement of the subject. He submitted that the Circular dated 28th June,2016 is not applicable to the petitioner as a Division Bench of this Court in the Principal Seat at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5313/2017 with connected writ petitions decided on 25th April, 2019 has held that the Circular dated 28th June, 2016 has no force of law and clauses (1) and (2) of the said Circular have been invalidated. 15. Learned counsel Mr. Sangeet placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others, (1987) AIR SC 2186, Saramma Varghese vs. Secretary/President, S.I.C.E.S. Society and others, (1989) MhLJ 951, Ashok Yashwant Nikam vs. Chatrapati Shivaji Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Nasik and others, (2009) 4 AllMR 118 and Murlidhar s/o Janrao Kale and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 AllMR 374 . 16. Mr.Dheple, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioner is junior to respondent No. 3. For transfer of a teacher from unaided to aided school, the sole criteria is seniority. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No. 3 ought to have been transferred on the vacant post of Late Shri Kishor Patil. He further submitted that respondent No. 3 has attended some seminars of Marathi language owing to which, he becomes eligible to teach Marathi subject. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No. 3 ought to have been transferred on the vacant post of Late Shri Kishor Patil. He further submitted that respondent No. 3 has attended some seminars of Marathi language owing to which, he becomes eligible to teach Marathi subject. He submitted that since the Secretary of the school is the father-in-law of the petitioner, proposal in the name of the petitioner came to be forwarded to respondent No. 4 and, respondent No. 4 accorded approval for transfer of petitioner to aided school. When the fact that respondent No. 3 is senior to petitioner was brought to the notice of respondent No. 4, he revoked the order dated 06th November, 2018 and transferred respondent No. 3 to aided school. After passing the order dated 26th March, 2018, respondent No. 4 gave hearing to all the parties concerned. Since respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner, his transfer to aided school was confirmed by the subsequent order dated 17th November, 2019. He submitted that amendment in Rule 41 of the MEPS Rules was made vide Notification dated 08th June, 2020 and the transfer was being effected on 26th March, 2019. Therefore, this amendment would not apply to the facts involved in the instant case. 16.1 Learned counsel Mr. Dheple placed reliance in the case of Suryakant S/o Janardan Muge vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 1493/2018 decided on 04.07.2019 and Pramod s/o Prabhakar Pokale vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 4 MhLJ 278 . 17. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has supported the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni placed reliance in the case of Miss. Devkar Dipali Kisan and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 5313/2017 decided on 25.04.2019. 18. Issue involved in this petition is whether transfer from unaided to aided school of an Assistant Teacher should be on the basis of seniority or on the basis of requirement of the subject. 18.1 It is not disputed that though both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed on the same date, respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner. 18.1 It is not disputed that though both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed on the same date, respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that Late Shri Kishor Patil who was Assistant Teacher in aided school was teaching Marathi subject and the said post had fallen vacant due to his accidental death. Admittedly, petitioner teaches Marathi subject whereas respondent No. 3 teaches Hindi subject. 19. It is to be noted that appointment of Assistant Teachers is governed by Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MEPS Act'). In the case of Suryakant (supra), this Court has held that the MEPS Act applies uniformly and equally to the Assistant Teachers working on aided posts and also on unaided posts. No distinction is made in service conditions of the Assistant Teachers working on aided and unaided posts. Section 13 of the MEPS Act gives authority to the State Government to frame Rules. Pursuant thereto, the State Government has framed Rules viz. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Rules). Rule 41 of the MEPS Rules deals with transfer of teachers from one school to another school which reads thus :- "41. Transfers - (1) Subject to the provisions of this 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. (2) Save in exceptional cases, and unless reasons are recorded in writing by the Management, such transfers shall not be effected in the middle of the term. (3) The Management shall see that the transfers do not adversely affect the pay or pay scale of the employees concerned and that such transfers do not result into loss in the pensionary benefits as admissible to them. (4) The expenditure on Travelling allowance and Daily allowance, if any, at the rates applicable to the Government employees of the comparable status, shall be borne by the Management. (4) The expenditure on Travelling allowance and Daily allowance, if any, at the rates applicable to the Government employees of the comparable status, shall be borne by the Management. If the transfer is at the request of the employee, this expenditure shall be borne by the employee concerned: Provided that the transfer involves change of headquarters, the joining time to be allowed to an employee shall be limited to six days (excluding Sunday) and actual days of journey. Subject to this limit, the period of joining time shall be treated as "duty" for all purposes : Provided that, an employee shall not be entitled to joining time, if transfer is effected during the vacation. (5) Where a Management runs a secondary school or secondary schools and a Junior College of Education - (a) Teachers in a Junior College of Education shall not be transferred to a secondary school against their will. Such transfers may, however, be made if they are at employees own request, subject to availability of vacancies in secondary schools. In the event of such a transfer, the pay drawn by the teacher in the Junior College of Education shall not be protected. He shall be deemed to be working in a secondary school during the period he worked in the Junior College of Education, and his pay shall be accordingly refixed on his joining the secondary school. (b) Teachers in secondary school shall not be transferred to a Junior College of Education against their will. Such transfers may, however, be made if they are at the employees' own requests, subject to the following conditions, namely : (i) Vacancies should be available in the Junior College of Education. (ii) The concerned employee shall retain the same place in the common seniority list; and (iii) Their pay in the Junior College of Education shall be fixed at the same stage of pay as their existing pay or at the minimum of the scale of pay in the Junior College of Education, whichever is higher." 19.1 Thus, Rule 41 authorises the School Management to make transfers for the better administration of the school taking into consideration administrative exigencies. 20. It needs to be mentioned at the outset that neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record any rule or circular or notification dealing with the subject in issue in this writ petition. 20. It needs to be mentioned at the outset that neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record any rule or circular or notification dealing with the subject in issue in this writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Circular dated 28th June, 2016 by respondent No. 3. This Circular is reproduced for facility of reference :- 21. Learned counsel Mr. Dheple for respondent No. 3 argued that clause (3) of the Circular dated 28th June, 2016 specifically mandates that seniority shall be the rule for the transfer of a teacher from unaided school to aided school. Since respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner, the Education Officer has followed the instructions in the Circular which cannot be faulted with. To counter this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sangeet placed reliance on paragraph No. 17 of the judgment in the case of Suryakant (supra) contending that it has been held in this decision that the Circular dated 28th June, 2016 cannot be treated as Government instructions. Paragraph No. 17 of the judgment reads thus :- 17. The question would be whether by way of an executive instructions, the powers of the management under rule 41 of MEPS Act for transfer of an employee can be circumscribed, curtailed and eroded. Rule 41 is framed under the Rule making power of the Government as provided under Section 13 of the MEPS Rules. The MEPS Rules is a piece of subordinate legislation. It is trite that, executive instructions cannot override the statutory Rules. Precisely, this has been held by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5313 of 2017 with connected writ petitions decided on 25.04.2019. The Division Bench in the said judgment held that : "The circular dated 28.06.2016 can hardly be said to be Government instructions. It has no statutory force in law. Rule 41 of the MEPS Act which is the subordinate legislation, the administrative decisions which run contrary to them cannot be held to be valid in law. We find that, since Clauses 1 and 2 of the said circular, run contrary to provisions of the subordinate legislation as found in Rule 41, the same would not be valid in law." While delivering the said judgment, the Division Bench considered the earlier judgments of this Court. We find that, since Clauses 1 and 2 of the said circular, run contrary to provisions of the subordinate legislation as found in Rule 41, the same would not be valid in law." While delivering the said judgment, the Division Bench considered the earlier judgments of this Court. Sub-clauses 1 and 2 of Clause 3 of the circular has already been held to be not valid in law by the Division Bench. There is no reason for us to take a different view. The impugned circular as it affects the rights of the management to transfer, as such, same is improper and does not have any enforceable status. 21.1 As held by the Division Bench of this Court, it cannot be said that Circular dated 28th June, 2016 has any enforceable status. It cannot be treated to be Government instructions and has no statutory force in law. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Suryakant (supra), it cannot be said that seniority is the rule on the sole criteria to be followed when transfers are being effected from unaided to aided school. 22. Learned counsel Mr. Sangeet placed reliance on the Notification dated 08.06.2020 issued by the School Education and Sports Department by which, Rule 41A of the MEPS Rules has been amended. Rule 41A reads as under :- "41A. Conditions for transfer of teacher from un-aided to partially aided or aided school or division - (1) The Management may transfer a teacher from un-aided school to partially aided school to the vacant post in partially aided school or aided school or division only if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:- (a) (i) the Management and Education Officer or Deputy Director shall, before making such transfer, verify that there is no surplus persons are available as provided in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act; (ii) if the surplus persons are available, the Management shall not make such transfer; (b) the transfer shall not be made from the teachers of self-financed school of the Management; (c) before making such transfer, the teacher should have completed minimum five years continuous service in un-aided school or division or partially aided school or division of the Management; (d) the transfer shall be made in equal or same cadre. The transfer shall not be made from primary to higher primary, higher primary to secondary or secondary to higher secondary or higher secondary to D.El.Ed. Schools or vice-versa; (e) the transfer shall be made only by following the seniority and as per the requirement of the subject; (f) before making transfer of a teacher, his appointment should have been approved by the Education Officer or Deputy Director, as the case may be; (g) the transfer shall be made on the vacant post; (h) the transfer shall be subject to the approval of Education Officer or Deputy Director, as the case may be. (2) If the post becomes vacant due to transfer, such vacant post shall be filled as per the procedure provided in rule 9. (3) The transferred teacher shall be eligible for scale of pay and allowances as decided by the Government, from time to time." 23. It is to be noted that Rule 41A of the MEPS Rules came to be amended in the year 2020 whereas transfer of petitioner was effected on 06th November, 2018 which was subsequently revoked and respondent No. 3 was transferred by order dated 26th March, 2019. This clearly shows that the amendment is subsequent to the transfer in issue. When transfer was effected, no such rule was in force. There is nothing on record to show that this amendment has retrospective effect. Therefore, this amendment has no application to the facts of this case. In view of this amendment, especially Rule 41A(i)(e), it is specifically laid down that the transfers from unaided to aided school will be based on seniority and as per the requirement of the subject. However, since this amendment has no retrospective effect, this amendment cannot be pressed into service. 24. In the case of Pramod Pokale (supra), the facts were that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher for teaching 1st to the standards. Thereafter, one teacher working on aided basis retired from the said school. On the request of the petitioner, he was appointed on the aforesaid vacant post on grant-in-aid basis. Petitioner Pramod was given appointment as Shikshan Sewak by the School Management and proposal for grant of approval to his appointment as Shikshan Sewak was forwarded to the Education Officer. The Education Officer rejected the proposal on the ground that there were surplus teachers available for absorption in Aurangabad District. Petitioner Pramod was given appointment as Shikshan Sewak by the School Management and proposal for grant of approval to his appointment as Shikshan Sewak was forwarded to the Education Officer. The Education Officer rejected the proposal on the ground that there were surplus teachers available for absorption in Aurangabad District. On these facts, it was held thus :- "When there is vacant post in the aided school, the institution can transfer senior most qualified Assistant Teacher working on unaided post to fill up the said vacancy, and if such senior most teacher is available in same school, said post on aided basis can be offered to him. There is no prohibition to adopt the aforesaid course. When the management can legally transfer Assistant Teacher serving in the unaided school to aided school, there is no reason to obtain an undertaking from such teacher as stated in sub-clause 5(B) of clause 3 of the aforesaid Circular. However, in case the State Government sanctions new post/posts on aided basis, and those are to be filled in afresh by giving fresh appointment/appointments on the post of Shikshan Sevak, the State Government can make applicable the formula/percentage of proportionate salary to be disbursed by the State Government and the concerned Institutions in the manner stated in sub-clause 5(B) of Clause 3 of the said Circular." 24.1 This is not the question involved in the case at hand. Therefore, this case is of no assistance to respondent No. 3. 25. In the case of Miss. Dipali Kisan Devkar (supra), the same facts were involved. Therefore, this case is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 26. Thus, it is clear that neither the petitioner nor the respondents produced any rule/notification to show that when a post of a particular subject falls vacant what course shall be followed by the School Management while transferring the teachers from unaided to aided school. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner was teaching Marathi subject in unaided school and the post which fell vacant was also of Marathi subject. Petitioner was appointed to teach Marathi subject in unaided school considering her qualification of B.A. B.Ed in Marathi and History. Respondent No. 3 was appointed to teach Hindi subject considering his qualification of B.A. B.Ed. in Hindi and History. Petitioner was appointed to teach Marathi subject in unaided school considering her qualification of B.A. B.Ed in Marathi and History. Respondent No. 3 was appointed to teach Hindi subject considering his qualification of B.A. B.Ed. in Hindi and History. Having regard to the qualifications of the petitioner, petitioner is the only eligible candidate to be transferred and appointed to teach Marathi subject in aided school. If seniority rule is to be followed it would lead to an anomalous situation which will be neither in the interest of the students nor in the interest of the Management. For instance, if a post of Assistant Teacher teaching Physics subject falls vacant in an aided school and a teacher from unaided school is to be transferred to the aided school on the basis of seniority and the senior most teacher is not of the same subject but of a different subject say Sanskrit or Hindi, it does not require any expertise to say that a teacher teaching Sanskrit will never be able to teach Physics and vice versa. Therefore, the course adopted by respondent No. 4 is neither practical nor it furthers interest of any stakeholder i.e. students or the Management. The criteria of seniority will be applicable only when there are more than one teacher in the subject in which post has fallen vacant. Taking a hypothetical example, if in this unaided school there had been two teachers teaching Marathi subject, then it was permissible for the Education Officer to apply the rule of seniority. When there is only one teacher teaching a particular subject and he is to be transferred to aided school for teaching that subject only, the question of seniority goes on the backburner. While making transfer from unaided school to aided school, requirement of subject is the first and foremost criteria. If there are more than one teacher in unaided school teaching that particular subject, then only seniority will come into the picture. Though Rule 41A was not on the statute book in 2018, the principle underlying the said rule can be adopted while deciding the case at hand. The underlying principle is that the requirement of the subject should have first and foremost precedence. If a solitary post is available in the unaided school in that subject, then question of seniority does not arise. The underlying principle is that the requirement of the subject should have first and foremost precedence. If a solitary post is available in the unaided school in that subject, then question of seniority does not arise. It will be relevant only when there are more than one teacher teaching the subject in which post has fallen vacant while effecting transfers from unaided to aided school. In such cases, seniority and the requirement of the subject shall be the rule. Therefore, the Education Officer had initially correctly accepted the proposal for transfer of petitioner from unaided school to aided school for teaching Marathi subject. There was no occasion for respondent No. 4 - Education Officer to consider the criteria of seniority having regard to the requirement of the subject. Since there was only one teacher teaching Marathi subject in unaided school, the question of following seniority never arose. Having regard to this, the order dated 26th March, 2019 passed by respondent No. 4 is unsustainable. 27. The order of the Education Officer cannot be sustained for one more reason. Admittedly, by the order dated 6th November, 2018, petitioner was transferred and appointed as Shikshan Sewak in aided school from unaided school. This order came to be reviewed by the Education Officer by the order dated 26th March, 2019 and this review order was confirmed by the order dated 17th September, 2019 after hearing the parties. The order dated 26th March, 2019 was passed without hearing the petitioner. The question is whether the Education Officer has power to review his own order. It is trite that review is a creature of the Statute and a quasi judicial authority or any such authority or tribunal does not remain in seisin of the matter once it has been decided unless power of review is conferred on such authority. In the case of Ashok Yashwant Nikam (supra), it has been held thus : 4. Mr. Anilkumar Patil the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an Education Officer determines the seniority of teachers in exercise of power under Rule 12 of M.E.P.S. Rules. According to the learned counsel there is no power of review and adjudication of seniority once made. The petitioner has relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court Lodha, J. (as he then was) in Kausalyabai wd/o Nattu Praskar & ors. Vs. According to the learned counsel there is no power of review and adjudication of seniority once made. The petitioner has relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court Lodha, J. (as he then was) in Kausalyabai wd/o Nattu Praskar & ors. Vs. Ramchandra Satbaji Patekar, (1995) 2 MhLJ 913 , where this Court observed as follows : "...... It is well settled that the review is the creature of the Statute and quasi judicial authority or any such authority or tribunal does not remain in seisin of the matter once it has been decided unless power of review is conferred on such authority. Even on the justifiable ground unless power of review is conferred on the authority under the law the order once passed cannot be reviewed. Power of review is not inherent. Rent Control Order, 1949 does not provide any power on the Rent Controller to review its order on any ground whatsoever." Neither M.E.P.S. nor the Rules confer any power on an Education Officer to review the order once made. 28. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 could not lay his hands on any provision to indicate that the Education Officer is conferred with the power of review. Therefore, review of the order dated 6th November, 2018 was incompetent. For this reason also, the order of the Education Officer transferring and appointing respondent No. 3 as Shikshan Sewak for teaching Marathi subject in aided school cannot be sustained. 29. Before parting with the record, we may also like to mention that this Court in the order dated 26th April, 2019 while staying the order dated 26th March, 2019 had severely indicated the Education Officer i.e. respondent No. 4 of having acted in an arbitrary and high handed manner. Notwithstanding the same, he went ahead and passed the order dated 17th September, 2019, confirming the order dated 26th March, 2019, operation of which continues to remain stayed. When the Court had taken cognizance of the grievance of the petitioner and was in seisin of the matter, it was highly improper on the part of respondent No. 4 to have passed the order dated 17th September, 2019. It needs no reiteration that when the Court is in seisin of a matter, an administrative or executive authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject matter at its own ipse dixit and record a finding. It needs no reiteration that when the Court is in seisin of a matter, an administrative or executive authority cannot start a parallel proceeding on the very same subject matter at its own ipse dixit and record a finding. It would amount to interfering with the dispensation of justice by the Courts. It is not only unacceptable but is contumacious as well. 30. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, it has to be said that the Education Officer was initially justified in transferring and appointing the petitioner for teaching Marathi subject in aided school from unaided school vide order dated 6th November, 2018. However, he was not justified in reviewing that order and transferring and appointing respondent No. 3 as Shikshan Sewak for teaching Marathi subject in aided school from unaided school. 31. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed as under :- i) The orders dated 26th March, 2019 and 17th September, 2019 passed by respondent No. 4 are set aside. ii) The order dated 6th November, 2018 passed by respondent No. 4 transferring and appointing the petitioner as Shikshan Sewak in aided school from unaided school stands restored. iii) Parties to bear their own costs. iv) Rule made absolute in above terms.