Bombay High Court
KAILAS DINKAR NIKALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRIN. SEC. SCHOOL EDU. AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the respondents must consider the petitioner’s representations and decide the promotion matter after hearing the parties, within a four‑week period.
Summary
The petitioner, a teacher employed at a state‑aided school, applied for promotion to the post of Headmaster and submitted three representations in July‑August 2026. He filed a writ petition seeking a directive that the education authorities consider these representations before proceeding with the promotion. The respondents, including the State and the Principal Secretary of School Education, did not file replies for two of the institutions involved. The Court, without adjudicating the merits, ordered respondents 2 to 4 to examine the representations, afford a hearing to the petitioner and Respondent No.5, and render a decision within four weeks. A hearing was scheduled for 5 October 2026 before the Education Officer. The Court noted that Respondent No.5 had already been promoted by an order dated 17 August 2026 but left further consideration to the authority. The petition was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to Headmaster based on his representations
- Whether the court can direct the education authorities to consider the petitioner’s representations before finalising the promotion
Subjects
- promotion
- headmaster
- teacher
- writ petition
- administrative law
- education department
- hearing
Judgment
401- WP-12653-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12653 OF 2026
Kailas Dinkar Nikale ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Thr The Prin. Sec. School Edu. &
Sports Dept. & Ors ...Respondents
_______
Ms Preeti Walimbe, with Varad V Sherlekar, Mayank R Tripathi, for petitioner.
Ms Nisha M Mehra, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr Rahul Kadam, for Respondent No.5.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner is a teacher working with Respondent No.4-School, which is
stated to be fully aided by the State. The Petitioner is contending that he is eligible
for promotion to the post of Headmaster and to that effect, has made
representations dated 02.07.2026, 20.07.2026 and 04.08.2026. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner is praying for the relief in terms of prayer clause (d), which reads
thus:-
“d. In the alternative this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider and decide the
representations/objections dated 02.07.2026, 20.07.2026 and 04.08.2026
submitted by the Petitioner before proceeding with the promotion process;”
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
401- WP-12653-2026.DOC
3. Although neither the reply is filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 nor
they are represented, considering the nature of the order intended to be passed, no
prejudice will be caused to them.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of
the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that it is appropriate that Respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 consider the said representations, which is the subject matter of the
prayer, and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner and Respondent No.5, as also the
representatives of Respondent Nos.3 and 4-Institutions.
5. All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.
6. Let the parties appear before the Education Officer on 5 th October 2026 at
2.30 p.m. and thereafter, after hearing the parties, a decision be taken within a
period of four weeks.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 states that his client has
already been promoted vide order dated 17th August 2026. He has placed on record
a copy of the proposal and the letter dated 17 th August 2026 forwarded to the
Education Officer seeking approval. The same are taken on record and marked ‘X’.
We do not intend to delve further on these contentions and it is for the authority to
take into consideration the factual matrix on record and pass appropriate orders.
7. 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
11:56:09
+0530
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.