Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ANIKET SURESH JADHAV AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is allowed to the extent of the three petitioners who obtained relief from the Supreme Court.

Summary

Eleven petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the selection process for appointments. During the pendency, eight petitioners had already been selected, while the remaining three – Pratikraj Rajendrakumar Hamand, Sneha Hanamant Bhand and Vidya Dipak Pawar – obtained relief from the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 011271‑011272/2026. By mutual consent, the Bombay High Court allowed the petition only to the extent of these three petitioners, recognizing their successful Supreme Court orders. The court thereby limited the relief to the three petitioners who were placed at serial numbers 112, 113 and 114 in the merit list. No further orders were made regarding the other eight petitioners.

Issues considered

  • What relief, if any, is available to the petitioners who were not selected before the Supreme Court judgment?
  • Whether the writ petition can be allowed partially to the three petitioners who obtained a Supreme Court order?

Subjects

  • selection process
  • merit list
  • writ petition
  • Supreme Court order
  • partial relief
  • appointment

Judgment

TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by
                                                         1           921-wp-12596-2025.odt
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2026.08.28
17:03:42 +0530

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2025

                      Adv. Aniket Suresh Jadhav & Ors.              … Petitioners
                            versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.               … Respondents
                                                         ……

                      Mr.Vaibhav Kulkarni with Mr.Prathamesh Deshpande i/b. Mr.Prajakt
                      Arjunwadkar for the Petitioners.

                      Mrs.Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr.B.V.Samant, Addl.GP,
                      Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.GP and Mrs.Pooja C. Patil, AGP for the
                      Respondent -State.

                      Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni with Mr.Hrutik R. Chavan for the Respondent
                      – MPSC.

                      Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for the
                      Respondent, the Bombay High Court.
                                                    …...

                                        CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ
                                                    &
                                                GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.


                                         DATE    : 27 AUGUST, 2026

                      P.C.:


                      1.         This Petition is filed by eleven Petitioners. During the

                      pendency of this Petition, eight have already been selected and


                                                                                Trupti S. Bamne
                                           2            921-wp-12596-2025.odt

appointed. The remaining three, namely, Pratikraj Rajendrakumar

Hamand, Sneha Hanamant Bhand and Vidya Dipak Pawar, have

succeeded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

19.08.2026 passed in Pratikraj Rajendrakumar Hamand & Ors. Versus

Nikita Deepakrao More & Ors.1 These three are at Serial Nos. 112, 113

and 114, respectively, in the merit list.



2.               By consent of the parties, since these three candidates have

also succeeded, the Petition is allowed to the extent of these three

Petitioners.




(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)                         (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




1    Civil Appeal No. 011271-011272/2026

                                                                   Trupti S. Bamne


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.