VINAYAK PANDHARINATH IDATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. AND ORS.

                                                          83-WP-11947-2025.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 11947 OF 2025

Vinayak Pandharinath Idate                          ...Petitioner.
        Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr.
Secretary Minister Of Public
Works Dept. And Others                              ...Respondents.

                                ——————
Mr. Nagesh Y Chavan a/w Ms. Ankita Chindage, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                ——————
                                  Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                              Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                  Date      : September 15, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        By the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal

[MAT], Mumbai, in Original Application No.318/2023, rejecting the

application by reason of delay of almost seven years and in the absence

of an appropriate application.

2.        The Petitioner approached the MAT seeking a declaration that the

non-selection of the Petitioner pursuant to the select list dated

04.11.2015 as well as the communication dated 05.02.2016 is illegal and

bad in law and the Petitioner be recommended for selection to the post

of Executive Engineer (Electrical) / Electrical Inspector, Group-A, along



Sameer                             1 of 3
                                                        83-WP-11947-2025.doc


with all consequential service benefits.

3.       The impugned order indicates that the submission canvassed was

that the advertisement was published in the year – 2014, the interview

letter was received by the Petitioner, and the select list was published in

the year – 2015 by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC).

The Petitioner was placed at Serial No.5 of the select list from open

category. However, the candidates at Serial Nos.11 and 13 were

selected and appointed against open female category, bypassing the

Petitioner’s candidature. It was only in 2023, that the application came

to be filed before MAT and preliminary issue of limitation was raised. By

the impugned order, the Tribunal took into consideration the delay of

almost seven years in approaching the Tribunal and dismissed the

application.

4.       Mr. Chavan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits

that though the Petitioner was at Serial No.5 in the select list, the

candidates at Serial Nos.11 and 13, who had secured less marks than the

Petitioner, were selected. He submits that there is no delay, as

representations were made which were not responded to, and

therefore the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year – 2023. He

submits that the selection of the other candidates is not questioned.

However, as posts are now vacant, the Petitioner is entitled to the

vacant post.


Sameer                            2 of 3
                                                         83-WP-11947-2025.doc


5.       The facts are undisputed that the advertisement was published in

the year – 2014 and the select list was published in the year – 2015. For

a period of almost seven years, no steps were taken by the Petitioner,

and in the meantime, the candidates who had been selected were

appointed and continue to serve on the said posts. Pertinently, in the

original application, the selected candidates were not even impleaded

as parties to the proceedings.

6.       In our view, the term of the select list has expired, as the

advertisement was issued in the year – 2014 and the selections have

been made in the year – 2015. The waiting list, if any, cannot continue

for a period of more than eleven years. In the event the post is vacant, it

is open for the Petitioner to apply afresh, provided the Petitioner is

eligible and duly qualified for the said post. The Tribunal has rightly

observed the delay of more than seven years and has rightly rejected

the application. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

7.       Resultantly, the Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.




 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                        [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Sameer                             3 of 3