Bombay High Court
SOU. VIJAYASHRI MAHENDRA JAGTAPversusKURDUWADI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KURDUWADI THR. CHIEF OFFICER AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The seniority dispute does not survive the death of Respondent No.5, and the petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
Vijayashri Mahendra Jagtap filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that she is senior to Respondent No.5 for the post of Headmistress. Respondent No.5 had died on 30 June 2025, rendering the inter se seniority issue moot. The court held that the seniority dispute could not be adjudicated as the respondent was no longer alive. Consequently, the petition was disposed of as infructuous. The accompanying interim application was also dismissed as it no longer survived. The court indicated that the petitioner may pursue other remedies if her services are not considered for the appointment.
Issues considered
- Whether the inter se seniority dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No.5 survives after the death of Respondent No.5.
Subjects
- seniority
- inter se dispute
- writ petition
- disposal
- infructuous
- municipal council
- headmistress appointment
- death of respondent
Judgment
30-WP-9747-2011.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9747 OF 2011
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10082 OF 2025
Vijayashri Mahendra Jagtap ...Petitioner.
Versus
Kurduwadi Municipal Council,
Kurduwadi and Others ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. S. G. Kudle (Through VC) with Mr. Q. H. Kudle & Mr. Kishor Jadhav, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4-State.
Mr. Dilip Bodake with Mr. Amar P. Dhumal, for the Respondent No.5.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 14, 2026.
P. C. :
1. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 submits
that the Respondent No.5 has already expired on 30 th June 2025. He
would further point out the prayer clause (b) of the petition seeking a
declaration that the Petitioner is senior to the Respondent No.5.
2. As the issue of inter se seniority between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 does not survive for consideration, the petition is
disposed of as infructuous.
3. It is open for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy, in event
the Petitioner’s services are not considered for the post of
Headmistress, despite the demise of Respondent No.5.
Gaikwad RD 1 of 2
30-WP-9747-2011.doc
4. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, the Interim Application does
not survive and stands disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.08.15
10:32:12
+0530
Gaikwad RD 2 of 2
Checking your session…