Bombay High Court
BHAIDAS HARJI RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The impugned order is based on a misinterpretation of the earlier judgment and is therefore quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, appointed as a peon on 1 February 2010, was granted service approval only from 1 June 2014, prompting him to seek retroactive approval. After an appeal to the Minister and a writ petition (Writ Petition No.14542 of 2025) which directed the proper procedure for his pending appeal, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the court had ordered the matter to be referred to the School Tribunal. The petitioner contended that this was a misinterpretation of the court’s earlier order and that his appeal for correction of the approval date should be decided on its merits by the respondent. The High Court held that the impugned order was based on a misreading of the earlier judgment, quashed it, and remanded the appeal for substantive consideration within twelve weeks. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of respondent No.2 disposing of the petitioner's appeal on the basis that the matter must be referred to the School Tribunal is a correct interpretation of the High Court's order in Writ Petition No.14542 of 2025.
- Whether the petitioner’s request for retroactive correction of his service approval date can be decided by respondent No.2 or must be referred to the School Tribunal.
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Service approval
- Retroactive appointment
- Misinterpretation of judgment
- Appellate jurisdiction
- School Tribunal
- Quash order
- Remand
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42674-DB
{1} 64-wp-12098-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
64 WRIT PETITION NO. 12098 OF 2026
Bhaidas Harji Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Paresh Patil (Borse), Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for State
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered by
respondent No.2, thereby disposing of the appeal/representation of the
petitioner, by misinterpreting the decision of this Court in Writ Petition
No.14542 of 2025.
2. The petitioner is appointed as Peon with respondent No.6 w.e.f.
01.02.2010. Initially, the approval to his service was rejected. The
petitioner therefore, approached respondent No.1. By order dated
28.05.2021, passed by respondent No.1, the approval was granted to
the post of petitioner from '01.06.2014' and not from the date of his
appointment i.e., '01.02.2010'. Therefore, the petitioner has
approached the Hon'ble Minister, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare
{2} 64-wp-12098-2026
Department by way of an appeal.
3. Since, the appeal was not being decided, the petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.14542 of 2025, wherein this Court, by order dated
04.12.2025, has directed to adopt the due procedure of law for
disposal of pending appeal of the petitioner.
4. After the decision of this Court, respondent No.2 has disposed of
the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that, this Court has
directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the School Tribunal.
5. The impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed by respondent
No.2 is based on misinterpretation of the order passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.14542 of 2025.
6. By way of an appeal, the petitioner has sought correction of his
date of approval from ‘01.06.2014' to '01.02.2010'. Instead of
considering the appeal of the petitioner on merits, respondent No.2
has erroneously disposed of the same on the above stated ground. The
relief sought by the petitioner in the appeal cannot be sought before
the School Tribunal.
7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be
sustained.
{3} 64-wp-12098-2026
8. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order
dated 20.05.2026 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set-
aside.
9. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for
consideration on merits. The appeal of the petitioner shall be decided
on its own merits within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…