SMITA SAHEBRAO SHINDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40168-DB


                                                    1              3-wp 10363-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 10363 OF 2026

                 Dr. Smita Sahebrao Shinde                                    .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 State Of Maharashtra
                 Through The Secretary And Others                             .. Respondents

                 Mr. Sushant Dixit, Advocate h/f Mr. Srujan Nirkhee, Advocate for
                 Petitioner.
                 Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.

                                           CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                   JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                            DATE        :   01st SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.     Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.

                 for the State.


                 2.     The prayers in the petition read as under :

                           A. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the
                           present Writ Petition;

                           B. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the
                           complete record and proceedings of the interview of the
                           Petitioner dated 24.07.2026 for the post of Associate
                           Professor in History conducted by Respondent No. 2,
                           including attendance of Selection Committee members,
                           assessment sheets, marks allotted, minutes, mandatory
                                     2                   3-wp 10363-2026.odt

         video/audio      recordings       and     all   other      connected
         documents;

         C. After perusal of the record, this Hon’ble Court may
         kindly be pleased to hold and declare that the interview
         conducted by Respondent No. 2 on 24.07.2026 in respect
         of the Petitioner was illegal, arbitrary, non-transparent and
         contrary    to    the   prescribed        guidelines,Government
         Resolution and UGC Regulations;

         D. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
         Respondent No. 2 to re-conduct the interview of the
         Petitioner for the post of Associate Professor in History in a
         transparent manner and before duly constituted selection
         committee as per the GR/Regulations;

         E. That, pending hearing and disposal of the present Writ
         Petition, Respondent No. 2 be restrained from issuing any
         appointment order for the post of Associate Professors to
         any candidate;

         F. That, pending hearing and disposal of the present Writ
         Petition, Respondent No. 2 be directed to preserve and
         produce    before    this       Hon’ble    Court     the   complete
         audio/video recording and entire record of interview dated
         24.07.2026;

         G. Ad-Interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause E and F;

         H. Any other suitable relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit
         in the interest of justice and oblige;


3.   This Court made a query as to whether the result of the

interview is out and whether any marks are allotted and those are
                                  3             3-wp 10363-2026.odt


declared. The learned advocate for the petitioner expressed that as

on today no results are declared and no marks are communicated

even individually. Under this circumstances this Court finds that,

today, it is only apprehension in the mind of the petitioner because

of allegation that she was not allowed to give presentation at the

time of interview. It is thus apprehension that, as she is not

allowed even to give presentation at the time of interview, the

committee has bias and grudge against her.


4.       This Court finds that, today, there is only apprehension that

the petitioner would not be considered and she will not be given

the marks i.e. 20% marks for her performance. As on today, this

Court finds that it is only apprehension and there is no cause of

action is shown to entertain the writ petition. It is kept open to the

petitioner to approach this Court in case any cause of action

arises.


5.       With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.


6.       Needless to say that, all contentions are kept open.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )


P.S.B.