Bombay High Court
JAGANNATH S/O VITTHAL SHINDE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the respondents must decide the petitioners' representations within four weeks, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s mandate, and disposed of the petition.
Summary
The petitioners, members of reserved categories, appeared for the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test and scored higher than the last selected candidate in the general category, yet were placed only in their reserved categories and appointed to distant districts. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (C) Nos. 14517‑14539 of 2025), which directed inclusion of higher‑scoring candidates in the merit list, and sought a declaration that the same principle applies to them. The petitioners submitted multiple representations to the recruiting authorities requesting consideration in the general category and appointment in their native or adjacent districts, but no decision was rendered. The High Court, noting the prejudice caused by the inaction, ordered the respondents to decide the representations within four weeks, granting an opportunity of hearing and keeping all contentions open. The petition was subsequently disposed without any costs.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Supreme Court’s directions in Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the recruiting authorities are obligated to consider the petitioners’ representations and appoint them in the general category or in their native/adjacent districts.
- Whether a time‑bound order directing the respondents to decide the representations within four weeks is appropriate and lawful.
Subjects
- Article 226
- Reservation
- Merit list
- Teachers selection
- Relaxation of marks
- Appointment
- Time‑bound order
- Prejudice
Judgment
502-WP-11947-2026.DOCX
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11947 OF 2026
Jagannath s/o Vitthal Shinde & Ors. ...Petitioners
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Versus
Digitally signed by
The State of Maharashtra
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.08
Through Its Principal Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents
15:11:33 +0530
_______
Mr Devidas Rangnath Shelke, for Petitioners.
Mr P P Kakade, Addl G P, with Nisha M Mehra, AGP, for Respondents-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 7th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Not on Board. Taken on Board.
2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioners seek a declaration that the directions of the Supreme Court in Special
Leave Petition Nos. 14517 - 14539 of 2025 in the matter of Chaya & Ors. v. The
State of Maharashtra & Anr. in its order dated 23 rd March 2026, are also applicable
to the Petitioners; and for a direction to the Respondent Authority to appoint
Petitioners who have secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the
General Category in the Teachers Selection Process of 2024 in their home or
adjacent district.
3. The Petitioners, who belong to reserved categories, appeared in the Teachers
Aptitude and Intelligence Test (‘TAIT’) conducted pursuant to the notification
dated 31st January 2023 issued by Respondent No. 3, and figure in the select list
dated 25th February 2024 published by Respondent No. 2. By Clause No. 6 of the
Page 1 of 3
502-WP-11947-2026.DOCX
‘Press Release Regarding Teachers Selection’ dated 26th February 2024, candidates
who had qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test (‘TET’) by availing relaxation in the
qualifying marks were held ineligible for consideration in the general category. The
Petitioners contend that although they secured marks higher than the last selected
candidate in the general category, they were confined to their respective categories
and were consequently appointed in districts far removed from their native
districts, whereas some of them are yet to be appointed.
4. By judgment and order dated 23 rd March 2026 in Chaya & Ors. v. The
State of Maharashtra & Anr. (supra), SLP (C) Nos. 14517–14539 of 2025, the
Supreme Court directed the Respondents therein to include in the merit list those
candidates who had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the
general category.
5. Relying on the said judgment, the Petitioners submitted representations
dated 13th June 2026, 25th June 2026, 12th August 2026 and 18th August 2026 to
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, inter alia seeking that they be considered from the
general category and be accommodated in their native or adjacent districts. The
Petitioners contend that these representations have not been decided so far, and
that such inaction is causing them grave prejudice, especially as a fresh recruitment
process was advertised on 6th August 2026.
6. Mr Devidas Shelke, learned counsel for the Petitioners, has drawn our
attention to the order dated 28 th July 2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 7651 of 2026 with Writ Petition No. 9576 of 2026, whereby similar
Page 2 of 3
502-WP-11947-2026.DOCX
directions were issued in the case of similarly placed petitioners. He prays that
directions be issued to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the aforesaid
representations in a time-bound manner.
7. We are of the view that the inaction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is causing
grave prejudice to the Petitioners, and the representations must be decided as per
the mandate of law in a time-bound manner.
8. Considering the limited relief which the Petitioners seek, and the nature of
the order we propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents.
The following order would serve the ends of justice: -
ORDER
(i) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the representations of the
Petitioners dated 13th June 2026, 25th June 2026, 12th August 2026 and 18th
August 2026 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of uploading of this order,
in accordance with law.
(ii) Let all parties be given an opportunity of hearing.
(iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
(iv) The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Shivgan
Checking your session…