Bombay High Court

EKNATH SURYABHAN DUKREversusREGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ORS

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: RAVINDRA V GHUGE ABHAY MANTRI

Holding

The court recalled its earlier order by consent, set aside the prior rejections, and directed the Management to rectify and resubmit the proposals, allowing the Education Authority to decide based on the actual number of available posts.

Summary

The High Court heard two writ petitions concerning the appointment proposals of Eknath Suryabhan Dukre and Ranjana Ramkrishna Bharambe to a junior college post. The court discovered that both proposals had already been rejected by the Education Authority, but the court had earlier ordered the Authority to decide Ranjana's proposal within 45 days, unaware of the prior rejection. Upon learning of the factual lapse, the court, by consent of the petitioner, recalled its earlier order, set aside the earlier rejections, and directed the Management to correct deficiencies and resubmit both proposals. The court instructed the Deputy Director of Education to determine whether one or two posts exist and to hold a hearing, granting liberty to impose costs if the Management had improperly forwarded duplicate proposals. The petition filed by Eknath in 2023 was subsequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a court order directing an administrative authority to decide a proposal is valid when the proposal has already been rejected.
Whether the court may, by consent, recall its own order and set aside prior administrative rejections.
Whether the Education Authority must be allowed to rectify deficiencies in the proposals and consider them afresh.
How the authority should decide the appointments if only a single post is available versus two posts.

Subjects

appointment
education authority
proposal rejection
judicial review
consent order
administrative deficiency
single post
writ petition

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.02.20
941@504&506.WP-3505-2024.odt
14:45:34
+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(941) WRIT PETITION NO.3505 OF 2024
Eknath Suryabhan Dukre ….Petitioner
Versus
Regional Deputy Director & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
(504) WRIT PETITION NO.15987 OF 2023
Eknath Suryabhan Dukre ….Petitioner
Versus
Regional Deputy Director & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
(506) WRIT PETITION NO.12036 OF 2024
Ranjana Ramkrishna Bharambe alias
Ranjana Chudaman Mahajan ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
----
Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Aryan M. Deshmukh, Mr. Aniket
H. Kanawade, Mr. Vaibhav Thorave, Mr. Bhushan G. Deshmukh,
Mr. Irvin D’souza and Ms. Karishma Shinde for the Petitioner in
WP/3505/2024 and WP/15987/2023.
Mr. Vinod Sangvikar for the Petitioner in WP/12036/2024.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the
Respondent – State in WP/3505/2024 and WP/15987/2023.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP for the
Respondent – State in WP/12036/2024.
Mr. Chintan Shah for Respondent No.2 in WP/3505/2024 and for
Respondent No.5 in WP/12036/2024.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026

Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 7
941@504&506.WP-3505-2024.odt

P.C. :-

1. Writ Petition No.12036 of 2024 was not on board. By

consent, taken on the production board.

2. Peculiar facts are before us in the light of a mess

created by the Management.

3. When Writ Petition No.12036 of 2024 filed by Ranjana

Ramkrishna Bharambe alias Ranjana Chudaman Mahajan v/s. The

State of Maharashtra and Ors., was heard on 9th February, 2026, the

learned Advocate for the Petitioner was unaware as to whether the

proposal seeking approval for Ranjana was decided or otherwise.

Since the Petitioner Ranjana was under the belief that her proposal

was pending, we delivered an order on 9th February, 2026 and

directed the Education Officer to decide the proposal within

45 days.

4. Today, while hearing Writ Petition No.3505 of 2024

filed by Eknath Suryabhan Dukre v/s. Regional Deputy Director and

Ors., it is revealed that the proposal of Ranjana was already rejected

Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 7
941@504&506.WP-3505-2024.odt

by the Divisional Deputy Director of Education on 24 th July, 2025

on the ground that Ranjana and Eknath seem to have been appointed

on the same post. Even the Management did not inform us on

9th February, 2026, when Ranjana’s Petition was disposed off, that

her proposal had already been rejected. Eknath’s proposal was

rejected on 2nd January, 2024 on account of certain deficiencies.

A statement is made, on instructions, by the learned Advocate

representing Eknath, that all deficiencies had been pointed out by

Eknath and because of the deficiencies, the Authority should not

have rejected the proposal, but rather should have called upon the

Management to remove the deficiencies and submit a revised

proposal.

5. While hearing the Petition of Eknath, we kept the

Petition of Ranjana available for reference purposes. In view of

lack of information on the part of the Management or the conduct of

the Management in not conveying the facts to us, we disposed off

the Petition of Ranjana directing the Authority to decide her pending

proposal, which was already rejected on 24th July, 2025.

Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 7
941@504&506.WP-3505-2024.odt

6. In the light of the above, what prima facie appears to

us, as well as to the learned Addl. GP, is that the Education

Authority will have consider whether Eknath or Ranjana have been

appointed on the same post or whether there are two posts available

which could accommodate both of them.

7. The learned Advocate representing Ranjana, who is

present in the Court, submits, on instructions, that Ranjana gives her

consent for recall of the order of this Court dated 9 th February, 2026.

We accede to his request.

8. In view of the above, the order dated 9th February,

2026, passed in Writ Petition No.12036 of 2024 filed by Ranjana, is

recalled by consent. The Writ Petition No.12036 of 2024 is restored

by consent and the order of rejection of her proposal dated 24 th July,

2025 is set aside. The order dated 2 nd January, 2024 in Writ Petition

No.3505 of 2024 filed by Eknath is quashed and set aside only to

enable the Deputy Director of Education to deal with the situation

on its own merits.

Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 7
941@504&506.WP-3505-2024.odt

9. In this backdrop, we find it appropriate to direct that the

Management be given an opportunity to remove the deficiencies in

the proposal of Eknath and re-submit the proposal to be considered

along with the proposal of Ranjana, which also will have to be

restored. If there are two posts available, the Deputy Director of

Education will have to deal with the two proposals, since it is a

Junior College in which Ranjana and Eknath are working and the

matter would not lie before the Education Officer.

10. If there is only one post available, the said Authority

will have to decide as to who amongst the two can be granted

approval and in that situation, we grant liberty to the said Authority

to deal firmly with the Management and even impose costs, if felt

appropriate, for having forwarded two proposals of two teachers, if

there was only one post available.

11. Hence, both these Petitions are partly allowed in above

terms, with the following directions :

(a) The Management will now prepare updated
proposals of both these Petitioners, complete in all
respects, specifically identifying the posts on
which they have been selected and appointed,

Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 7
941@504&506.WP-3505-2024.odt

within a period of 30 days from today and
re-tender both the proposals in the office of the
Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region,
Mumbai.

(b) The said Authority will issue notice to the
Management as well as to Ranjana and Eknath
after receiving the two proposals from the
Management and commence a hearing on both the
proposals.

(d) The hearing would be completed within
60 days from the date of filing of the two
proposals by the Management and a reasoned
order shall be passed, which would be
communicated to the Management as well as to
Ranjana and Eknath, on their respective email
addresses, as follows :

[email protected]

(e) If any of the parties are aggrieved by the order,
they would be at liberty to avail of a remedy as is
permissible in law.

WRIT PETITION NO.15987 OF 2023

12. This Petition has been filed by Eknath and is not on

board today. On request, taken on the production board.

Gauri Gaekwad 6 of 7
941@504&506.WP-3505-2024.odt

13. The learned Advocate appearing for Eknath submits, on

instructions, that in the light of the above order, this Petition would

not survive and may be disposed off.

14. As such, this Writ Petition No.15987 of 2023 stands

disposed off, on instructions.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…