Bombay High Court

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR INGOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed as the caste validation claim has been invalidated, leaving no basis for provisional regularisation.

Summary

The petitioner, Dhananjay Madhukar Ingole, filed a contempt petition challenging an order that directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide his caste validation claim and ordered provisional regularisation of his services subject to a caste validation certificate. The respondent State, through its AGP, informed the Court that the Scrutiny Committee had already decided and invalidated the petitioner's caste claim in 2021. The Court held that, since the caste claim was already invalidated, there is no basis for granting provisional regularisation. Consequently, the contempt petition had no surviving ground and was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition can proceed when the petitioner's caste validation claim has already been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee.
Whether the Court can order provisional regularisation of the petitioner's services in the absence of a valid caste validation certificate.

Subjects

contempt
caste validation
provisional regularisation
public service
administrative law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27786-DB

132.19CP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

909 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2019
IN WRIT PETITION NO.10344 OF 2016

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR INGOLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.Deepak B. Rasve h/f.
Mr.A.H.Koralkar
AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.P.S.Patil
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

DATE : 10.07.2026
P.C. :

1] Heard. Though the learned counsel Mr.Deepak B.
Rasve holding for Mr.A.H.Koralkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner sought an adjournment, but on going through the
order under contempt, it is evident that two fold directions
are given, firstly for respondent no.1–Scrutiny Committee to
decide the caste validation claim of the petitioner and
secondly to respondent no.3 for provisionally regularized
services of the petitioner subject to furnishing caste
validation certificate.

2] The learned AGP, on instructions, submits that
the caste validation claim of the petitioner is already decided
by the respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee in the year
2021 itself and it was invalidated.
132.19CP

3] Under such circumstances, once the caste claim
of the petitioner is invalidated, there is no question of
granting him provisional regularization. In view of the same,
nothing survives in this Contempt Petition and the same
stands disposed of.

[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE

DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…