Bombay High Court
SURESH YOSEPH PANDITversusASHOK NANABHAU KADUS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition was disposed as there was no remaining issue to consider, given the parallel pending writ petition.
Summary
The petition sought to enforce an order directing the Education Officer to approve the appointment of Petitioner No.3, based on vacancy and state policy at the time. The respondent produced a communication dated 03.10.2016 showing that the Education Officer had found no vacancy and refused approval. The petitioner indicated that this refusal was already being challenged in a separate writ petition (Writ Petition No. 8188 of 2018). The Court held that, because the matter was pending before another forum, there was nothing further to consider in the present petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed without any order on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a petition challenging the refusal of appointment approval when the same issue is already pending in a separate writ petition.
Subjects
- contempt
- appointment approval
- pending litigation
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37438-DB
938 cp 51-17 .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
938 CONT. PETITION NO. 51 OF 2017
IN WP/9312/2015
SURESH YOSEPH PANDIT
VERSUS
ASHOK NANABHAU KADUS
...
Mr. Chaitnya Dharukar h/f Ms. Dharurkar Vinaya (Muley), Advocate for
the Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Wagh h/f Mr. Shelke Shivaji T., Advocate for Respondent
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
Date : 19/08/2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard.
2. The order under contempt indicates that the Education Officer
was directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 by
considering the position of the vacancy prevailing at the time of his
appointment as well as the policy of the State Government prevailing at
the relevant time. However, learned counsel for the respondent has
brought to our notice the communication dated 03.10.2016 issued by
the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
3. On perusal of the said communication, it is evident that the
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar after
considering the order under contempt, opined that no vacant post was
available at the time of appointment of Petitioner No. 3 and therefore,
VS Maind/ Page|1
938 cp 51-17 .
refused to grant approval to his appointment. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Education
Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, has been challenged by
Petitioner No. 3 by filing a separate Writ Petition No. 8188 of 2018,
which is presently pending.
4. In view of the above, nothing further survives for consideration in
the present petition, as Petitioner No.3 has already challenged the
rejection of approval to his appointment in the said writ petition.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
5. Later on, Mr. Chaitnya Dharurkar, learned counsel, holding for
Ms. Vinaya Dharurkar, is present.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
VS Maind/ Page|2
Checking your session…