Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

APPASO NIVRUTTI SHENDKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

Respondent No.2 must consider the proposals forwarded by Respondents Nos.3 and 4 and decide on the petitioner’s appointment within four weeks, with the proposal to be submitted within two weeks if not already done.

Summary

The petitioner, Appaso Nivrutti Shendkar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a directive for Respondent No.2 to consider and decide a proposal dated 5 March 2025 for his appointment as Assistant Laboratory in a junior college, including allocation of a Shalarth ID and release of grant-in-aid salary. The petition alleged that the management (Respondents Nos.3 and 4) had submitted the proposal but Respondent No.2 had not acted on it. The Court examined whether the administrative authority (Respondent No.2) was obligated to take a decision after hearing the parties. It held that Respondent No.2 must take appropriate steps to consider the proposal and render a decision within a specified time. The Court ordered the decision to be made within four weeks and, if the proposal had not yet been submitted, to be submitted within two weeks. The petition was disposed without costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether Respondent No.2 is legally bound to consider and decide the proposal for the petitioner’s appointment under the Shalarth Pranali.
  • Whether the Court can direct a time‑bound decision by an administrative authority in a writ petition under Article 226.

Subjects

  • Article 226
  • Writ petition
  • Administrative law
  • Appointment
  • Shalarth Pranali
  • Time‑bound directive

Judgment

                                                                                                       402.DOC



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO.8574 OF 2026

          Appaso Nivrutti Shendkar                                    ...Petitioner
                Versus
          The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                             ...Respondents

                                              _______
          Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar,
          for Petitioner.
          Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP for the State.
                                            _________
         Digitally
         signed by

VILAS
RANE
         PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS RANE
         Date:
         2026.08.18
                                                     CORAM:           G. S. KULKARNI &
         18:29:47
         +0530
                                                                      Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                     DATE:            17 AUGUST 2026.

          P.C.

          1.          This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for

          the following substantive reliefs:

                            “a)       Rule Nisi be issued and records and proceedings be called for;
                            a1)       By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may be
                           pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to decide the proposal dated
                           5.3.2025 (Exh.G) to enter the name of petitioner in Shalarth Pranali and to
                           allot him Shalarth I.D. in the post of Assistant Laboratory at the Respondent
                           No.4 Junior College w.e.f. 1.1.2023.
                            b)        By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may be
                           pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 to grant permission to enter the
                           name of the Petitioner in Shalartha Pranali and to allot him Shalartha I.D. in
                           the post of Laboratory Assistant at the Respondent No.4 Junior College
                           w.e.f. 1.1.2023 and to release the grant-in-aid for payment of stage-wise
                           salary to the Petitioner from the said date, with all arrears.”


          2.          The only prayer in the petition is that the proposal which has been

          submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 – the management to respondent No.2 for

          the allotment of Shalarth I.Ds. to the petitioners as Laboratory Assistant in

          respondent No.4 – Junior College be accepted and decided by respondent No.2

                                                    Page 1 of 2
                                                  17 August 2026
          P.V.Rane
                                                                               402.DOC



in accordance with law.

3.         We are of the opinion that respondent No.2 needs to take appropriate

steps to consider the proposals as forwarded by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and to

take a decision after hearing all the parties on the proposal for allotment of

Shalarth I.Ds. to the petitioners.

4.         Let this exercise be undertaken within four weeks from today. There shall

not be any further extension.

5.         Needless to observe that, in the event, the proposal is yet to be submitted

by the management, let the same be submitted within a period of two weeks from

today.

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

7.         Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




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




                                       Page 2 of 2
                                     17 August 2026
P.V.Rane


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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