Bombay High Court
JITENDRASINGH PREMSING PATILversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO LTD. AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and make a representation, directing the competent authority to decide the promotion issue within three weeks after a hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendrasingh Premsing Patil, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. to promote him to Superintending Engineer (Civil) as per the 1961 Classification and Recruitment Regulations, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21. The petitioner later sought leave to withdraw the petition and instead make a representation to the competent authority regarding the promotion. The Court held that the petitioner’s stand was fair and permitted him to withdraw the writ and file a representation, directing the authority to decide the matter within three weeks after hearing. The Court also ordered that the representation be filed within ten days and that a reasoned order be issued. All other contentions were kept open, no costs were awarded, and the pending interim application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a promotion is denied, and can the petitioner withdraw the writ and make a representation?
- Whether the High Court can direct the competent authority to decide the promotion matter within a specified time.
Subjects
- promotion
- administrative law
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- Article 14
- Article 21
- representation
- public service
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS 13.DOC
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.08.14
12:49:04
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1244 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10420 OF 2025
Jitendrasingh Premsing Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil with Shivkumar S. Sangwad, for Petitioner.
Mr. Neel Helekar with Akhilesh Adhav, for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Anu C. Kaladharan, for Respondent No.3.
_________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 11 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive prayers:
“(A) Call for record and proceedings of the case.
(B) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or
directions in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to
promote the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) in
accordance with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Classification and
Recruitment Regulations, 1961 by considering the deemed date of promotion as
27.09.2023 and petitioner be conferred with all consequential benefits by virtue
of promotional post and for that purpose issue necessary orders;
(C) Hold and declare that inaction on the part of respondents in denying the
promotion to the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) as per
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Classification and Recruitment
Regulations,1961 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the
Constitution of India hence liable to be quashed and set aside and for that
purpose issue necessary orders.”
2. After this petition was heard for some time, Mr.Patil, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner
Page 1 of 2
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
13.DOC
to approach respondent No.1 / the Competent Authority by making a
representation with regard to the promotion to the post of Superintending
Engineer, including to assert the grounds as raised in this petition.
3. We are of the opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner is a fair stand.
We permit the petitioner to make a representation raising all contentions as raised
by him in this writ petition, as also any other contentions.
4. Let a representation be made within a period of ten days from today. If so
made, let the same be decided by the Competent Authority within a period of
three weeks, by a reasoned order and after granting an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner.
5. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
6. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
7. The pending Interim Application would not survive. The same stands
disposed of.
(Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
11 August 2026
P.V.Rane
Checking your session…