Bombay High Court
PRASHANT SURESH PAWAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that, in the interest of justice, Respondent No.3 must decide the appointment proposal within four weeks of the order.
Summary
The petitioners, Prashant Suresh Pawar and another, sought a writ directing the State of Maharashtra to promptly decide a proposal dated 8 September 2025 for the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher on the regular pay scale after three years of service as a Shikshan Sevak. The sole relief prayed for was an order compelling Respondent No.3 to decide the proposal within four weeks and to schedule a hearing on 7 October 2026. The Court examined whether such a direction was permissible and in the interest of justice, noting that it would not prejudice the rights of Respondent No.5. It concluded that the Court could and should issue the expeditious directive to avoid undue delay. Accordingly, the Court ordered Respondent No.3 to decide the proposal within four weeks and set a hearing date, disposing of the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court may direct Respondent No.3 to decide the appointment proposal within a specified time frame
- Whether such a direction would prejudice the rights of any other respondent
Subjects
- writ petition
- appointment
- assistant teacher
- pay scale
- expeditious decision
- high court
- administrative law
Judgment
410- WP-12617-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12617 OF 2026
Prashant Suresh Pawar and Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Thru Secretary and Ors ...Respondents
_______
Mr Vinayak R Kumbhar, with Rajendra B Khaire, i/b Ashwini N Bandiwadekar,
for Petitioners.
Ms P N Diwan, AGP for Respondents-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr Vinayak Kumbhar, learned counsel for the Petitioners
and the learned AGP representing the State.
2. Although there are different prayers, learned counsel for the Petitioners
presses prayer clause (b), which reads thus:-
“b] By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to immediately decide the
proposal dated 08.9.2025 [EXHIBIT-F] submitted by the Petitioner
No. 2 seeking individual approval to the Petitioner No. 1 in the
regular pay scale in the post of Assistant Teacher, after having
completed approved service of 3 years as Shikshan Sevak on monthly
honorarium, and accordingly to grant such approval and thereafter to
release the grant-in-aid for payment of said salary in pay scale with
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
410- WP-12617-2026.DOC
effect from 15.6.2023 onwards, with all arrears in Pay Matrix S-14:
Rs.38,600-1,22,800 as per the 7th Pay Commission.”
3. Considering the only relief, which is the subject matter of prayer clause (b),
that the proposal dated 8th September 2025 as submitted by Petitioner No.2 be
decided by Respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible, we are of the opinion
that in the interest of justice, the proposal be decided expeditiously and in any
event, within a period of four weeks from today in accordance with law, and after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
4. Let Petitioner No.1 appear before Respondent No.3 on 7 th October 2026 at
2.30 p.m.
5. Although considering the interest of justice, we are inclined to pass the
aforesaid order, the aforesaid order would not cause any prejudice to the rights and
contentions of Respondent No.5. All contentions in that regard are expressly kept
open.
6. Disposed of. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.09.28
20:55:03
+0530
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.