Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NITIN VAMANRAO AHIREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court declined to issue mandamus and directed that the pending proposal be decided expeditiously after hearing the parties.

Summary

The petitioner, Nitin Vamanrao Ahire, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Education Officer to approve his pending proposal dated 08-07-2025 and appoint him as Headmaster with the appropriate pay scale. The respondents, the State of Maharashtra and officials of the Department of Education, contested the relief. The Court observed that the proposal is still pending before the Education Officer and ordered that it be decided after hearing the parties, directing the petitioner to appear before the authority on 30 September 2026. No substantive merits were adjudicated, and all contentions were kept open for further hearing. The petition was disposed without costs, directing expeditious consideration of the pending proposal.

Issues considered

  • What relief, if any, is appropriate under Article 226 for a pending appointment proposal?
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Education Officer to approve the petitioner’s appointment as Headmaster.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Writ petition
  • Article 226
  • Mandamus
  • Appointment
  • Headmaster
  • Education Officer
  • Pending proposal
  • Expeditious decision

Judgment

                                                                       403- WP-12676-2026.DOC



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 12676 OF 2026


Nitin Vamanrao Ahire                                         ...Petitioner
       Versus
The State of Maharashtra Thr.
The Principal Secretary
Department of Education and
Sports & Ors                                               ...Respondents
                                         _______

Mr Aditya S Deore, with Sanjeev B Deore, Suchita J Pawar, Arman Ansari,
Shamshad Ali, for Petitioner.
Mr P P Kakade, Addl GP, with Devyani Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                         _______

                                      CORAM:         G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                     DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                      DATE:          23 SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.

1.        This Writ Petition is filed praying for the following limited reliefs, which

read thus:-


               “(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction vested
               in it under Art 226 of Constitution of India and issue a writ of
               mandamus or any other appropriate directions/writ/order whereby
               directing the Respondent No-2 to decide the Petitioner's pending
               proposal dated 08.07.2025 and further grant approval to the
               appointment of the Petitioner as Headmaster w.e.f. 08.07.2025.
               AND/OR.

               (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction vested
               in it under Art 226 of Constitution of India and issue a writ of
               mandamus or any other appropriate directions/writ/order thereby
               directing the Respondent No-2 that after grant of approval to the



                                      Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
                                                                                 403- WP-12676-2026.DOC



                       Petitioner as headmaster w.e.f. 08.07.2025 further place or grant the
                       Petitioner the pay scale of the Headmaster.

                       (c) Any other relief in favour of this Petitioner may be granted by this
                       Hon'ble Court.”

2.            Although neither the reply is filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 nor he is

represented, considering the nature of the order intended to be passed, no

prejudice will be caused to him.


3.            Without going into the merits of the rival contentions, we are of the opinion

that the proposal, which is the subject matter of the prayers, is pending to be

decided by the Education Officer. Let the same be decided after hearing the

concerned parties in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible Let, the

Petitioner appears before the concerned authority on 30 th September 2026 along

with a copy of the present order.


4.            All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.


5.            The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)                                               (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)


          Digitally
          signed by
          SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH    SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN   Date:
          2026.09.24
          11:27:17
          +0530




                                              Page 2 of 2
Shivgan


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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