Bombay High Court
AADIL SAYYED AZAM AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioners liberty to make representations within two weeks.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an office order that terminated their services for not acquiring a required qualification and removed one petitioner from a select list. They relied on earlier decisions of the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition Nos. 3251/2021 and 1231/2022, where similarly situated candidates were allowed to withdraw their petitions and make representations to the High Court. The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, noted the precedent and granted the petitioners liberty to withdraw the writ petition and submit representations within two weeks. The court ordered that the representations be considered promptly by the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition and the accompanying civil application were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and make representations to the High Court in lieu of further adjudication
- Whether the earlier orders in Writ Petition Nos. 3251/2021 and 1231/2022 are applicable to the present petition
Subjects
- termination of service
- qualification requirement
- withdrawal of writ petition
- representation to High Court
- civil application
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:15781-DB
1 933-WP-8697-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8697 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4093 OF 2026
IN WP/8697/2019
AADIL SAYYED AZAM AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Sr. Advocate i/b Ms. Khushi K. Varma,
Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State
Dr. R. J. Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 08th APRIL, 2026
PER COURT :
1. By this petition, petitioners challenge office order dated
05/04/2019, passed by the Principal District Judge, Nanded, thereby
terminating services of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and deleting name of
petitioner No.3 from the select list, for not acquiring required
qualification.
2. By filing Civil Application No.4093/2026, petitioners
have placed on record copies of the order dated 10/02/2023, passed
by this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.3251/2021 [Saifali
Jabbar Shekh and Others Vs. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Through its Registrar General (Administration) and Others]
and order dated 04/04/2022, passed in Writ Petition No.1231/2022
SVH
2 933-WP-8697-19.odt
[Pawan Devanand Rudrakshawar and Others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others], which according to the learned Senior
Advocate for petitioners were filed by the similarly situated
candidates like the petitioners.
3. While disposing of Writ Petition No.3251/2021, this
Court at Nagpur Bench has observed that,
“2. We find that similarly situated candidates had made
representations and their representations were duly
considered and appropriately decided by the High Court.
Some of the candidates were the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.1231/2022.
3. Shri Chavan, learned counsel for the petitioners, on
instructions, seeks similar liberty for these petitioners
while withdrawing this petition.
4. Accordingly, leave to withdraw the petition with liberty
to make representations by each of the petitioners to the
High Court is granted. If representations are made by the
petitioners within two weeks, we expect that same shall be
duly considered and appropriately decided by the High
Court at the earliest.”
4. While disposing of Writ Petition No.1231/2022, following
order is passed,
“. On 21 March 2022 following order was passed:
“Again request is made on behalf of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioners for
adjournment. The Petitioners had taken time to
inform the Court whether the Petitioners are
pursuing the matter on merits or will make
representation to the Respondents. The stand is
not being made clear inspite of adjournment.
2. Stand over to 4 April 2022. To be listed
under the caption ‘For Dismissal’.”
2. Today the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks
SVH
3 933-WP-8697-19.odt
leave to withdraw the Writ Petition to make representation.
3. By way of indulgence, we grant the prayer of withdrawal
of the Writ Petition to enable the Petitioners to make
representation to the concerned Respondent.
4. Writ Petition is disposed of, as withdrawn.”
5. We are inclined to pass the similar order. Hence, the writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make
representation to the High Court. If the representation is made by
the petitioners within a period of two weeks, we expect that the
same shall be duly considered and appropriately decided by the
High Court at the earliest.
6. Accordingly, the civil application also stands disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…