Bombay High Court
MANOJKUMAR SHEONATH PANDEY AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ADDL CHIEF SEC. WATER RESOURCES DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the interim order is a status‑quo measure that does not require interference and disposed of the writ petitions, directing the Tribunal to hear the original application expeditiously.
Summary
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) issued an interim order on 7 August 2025 allowing the promotion process for Executive Engineer posts to continue while restraining the State from issuing any final promotion orders until a later date. Petitioners Manojkumar Sheonath Pandey and others challenged the continuation of this stay, arguing it harmed eligible candidates and the department, while the State of Maharashtra filed a separate writ petition seeking the same relief. The High Court examined whether the interim order, intended to preserve the status‑quo pending the final disposal of the original application, warranted judicial interference. The Court held that the interim order merely maintains the status‑quo and does not merit alteration, directing the Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the original application and issue a final order within three months. It further clarified that if the Tribunal cannot meet this timeline, the State may seek modification of the interim order. Consequently, both writ petitions were disposed of with the above directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim order restraining the State from issuing final promotion orders should be continued pending the disposal of the original application.
- Whether the High Court can direct the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to expedite the hearing and disposal of the original application.
- Whether the State may seek modification of the interim order if the Tribunal fails to dispose within the stipulated time.
Subjects
- interim order
- status quo
- promotion
- Executive Engineer
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- expeditious hearing
- public service reservation
- writ petition
Judgment
37 WP 6593-26 AND 40-C.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6593 OF 2026
Manojkumar Sheonath Pandey and anr. …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 8801 OF 2026
The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Petitioners
Versus
Abhijit Bajirao Raundal and ors. …Respondents
Mr. Chandrakant T. Chandratre, with Mr. J. A. Udaipuri and Mr.
Vinay Bhodge, for the Petitioners in WP No.6593 of 2026.
Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP, for the State in WP No.6593 of 2026.
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, with Ms. Vaidehi P. and Mr. Pratham
Gawali, for the Respondents No.2 to 5 in WP No.6593 of
2026.
Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP, for the Petitioners-State in WP No.8801 of
2026.
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, with Ms. Vaidehi P. and Mr. Pratham
Gawali, for the Respondents in WP No.8801 of 2026.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 31st JULY 2026.
PC:-
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
RAJESH
PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
1. Writ Petition No.6593 of 2026 is directed against the interim
2026.08.01
11:01:24
+0530
order dated 7th August, 2025 passed by the learned Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai in Original Application
Page 1 of 4
37 WP 6593-26 AND 40-C.DOC
(OA) No.749 of 2025, instituted by the Respondents No.2 to 5 as
Original Applicants in this Writ Petition.
2. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, learned AGP appearing for the State
submits that the said interim order dated 7 th August, 2025 has also
been challenged by the State of Maharashtra by filing Writ Petition
No.8801 of 2026.
3. Heard Mr. Chandrakant T. Chandratre, learned counsel
appearing for the Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6593 of 2026.
We have also heard submissions of Ms. Pooja Patil, learned AGP
appearing for the State in Writ Petition No. 8801 of 2026 as well as
the counsel for the private Respondents.
4. The core controversy involved in this Writ Petition, as
apparent from the material on record, is pertaining an interim
order passed by the learned Tribunal permitting the State to
continue the ongoing process of promotion to the post of Executive
Engineer in the department of Irrigation under the Government of
Maharashtra but the State has been restrained from issuing any
final order of promotion till the next date which was fixed on 26 th
Page 2 of 4
37 WP 6593-26 AND 40-C.DOC
August, 2025. The interim order has apparently been extended
from time to time.
5. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioners in both the Writ
Petitions that continuation of the stay order is adversely affecting
the interest of the eligible candidates as well as the Department.
Ms. Patil submits that since the time the order dated 7 th August,
2025 was passed, the entire promotional process has been
completed and therefore, it is a fit case either for expeditious
hearing and disposal of Original Application and/or suitably
modifying the interim order dated 7 th August, 2025, by keeping
25% posts reserved, so as to accommodate the original Applicants
if they succeed in the Original Application.
6. Mr. Chandrakant T. Chandratre, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.6593 of 2026 has pressed for
expeditious hearing and disposal of the Original Application, so as
to avoid multiplicity of suits and legal proceedings in the matters.
7. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and on going through the materials on record, we are of
the view that since the order dated 7 th August, 2025 is merely an
Page 3 of 4
37 WP 6593-26 AND 40-C.DOC
interim order which aim at maintaining the status-quo till the OA
is finally disposed of, the same does not call for any interference. It
has also brought to their notice that the Original Application itself
is fixed for final hearing on 6th August, 2026.
8. We, therefore, dispose of these Writ Petitions by making a
request to the learned Tribunal to conduct hearing of the Original
Application, as expeditiously as possible and pass final order,
preferably within three months from the date of hearing the
Original Application.
9. We also make it clear that if for any reason, the matter
cannot be heard and disposed of within the aforesaid time-frame,
then in that event, it would be open for the State to seek
modification of the order dated 7th August, 2025.
10. With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions stand
disposed of.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…