Bombay High Court
MANGESH RAMCHANDRA THOPATE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. DEPT OF SCHOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court may issue a mandamus directing the administrative authority to decide the pending appointment proposal within a reasonable time.
Summary
Petitioner Mangesh R. Thopate filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to approve his appointment as Shikshan Sevak, alleging that a proposal dated 26 July 2022 remains pending despite his continuous service since 2014. The petitioners argued that the delay violates service rules and deprives them of salary benefits. The High Court examined whether it could issue a mandamus compelling the Administrative Officer, Education Department (Primary), Pune Municipal Corporation to decide the pending proposal. Noting the absence of any written opposition and the limited relief sought, the Court held that directing the respondent to decide the application within a reasonable time does not prejudice the State. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondent to decide the proposal within four weeks, kept the parties' rights open, and disposed of the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the State to approve the appointment of a Shikshan Sevak.
- Whether the delay in deciding the appointment proposal violates the petitioner's service rights.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ of mandamus
- appointment
- Shikshan Sevak
- service law
- administrative delay
Judgment
402 WP 8843-25.STM.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8843 OF 2025
Mangesh R. Thopate & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Sandeep Phatak for Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w P. B. Chavan, AGP for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 27 JULY 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
“[A] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus
or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, directing the Respondent No. 2 to grant approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 in the Petitioner No. 2 school on
the post of Shikshan Sevak, by deciding the proposal dated 26.07.2022
[Exh-E].
[B] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus
or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to include the 1st Petitioner's
name in the 'Shalarth- ID' List and all other benefits, which he is
entitled such as Salary benefit of grant in aid and the arrears of salary
may be given to him forthwith.
[C] That pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, as
and by way of interim relief, this Honourable Court be pleased to pass
an order of injunction, restraining the Respondents from
appointing/absorbing/ filling in any surplus teacher on the post
presently occupied by the Petitioner No. 1.
Page 1 of 3
Laxmi
402 WP 8843-25.STM.DOC
[D] That pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, as and by
way of interim relief, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to include the 1st Petitioner's name in the
'Shalarth- ID' List and grant Salary benefit of grant in aid and the
arrears of salary to him forthwith.”
2. The only relief sought by the Petitioners in the present petition is a
direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide the proposal dated 26 July 2022 and
grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as a Shikshan Sevak in
Petitioner No. 2 School.
3. The short facts giving rise to the present Petition are that Petitioner No.
2–School published an advertisement dated 10 June 2014 in the daily newspaper
Pudhari, Pune, inviting applications for the post of Shikshan Sevak. As Petitioner
No. 1 possessed the requisite qualifications and belonged to the Open Category, he
was selected for the said post on 11 June 2014. Pursuant thereto, the Management
passed a resolution approving the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as a Shikshan
Sevak with effect from 16 June 2014, and an appointment order was issued to him
on the same date.
4. It is the Petitioners’ contention that Petitioner No. 1 has been
continuously serving as an Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak in Petitioner No. 2–
School since 16 June 2014 without any break in service. Thereafter, on 26 July
2022, Petitioner No. 2 forwarded a proposal to Respondent No. 2 seeking
approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 to the said post.
5. According to the Petitioners, despite several reminders, the said
proposal has remained pending and undecided before Respondent No. 2. It is their
Page 2 of 3
Laxmi
402 WP 8843-25.STM.DOC
contention that the proposal dated 26 July 2022 ought to be considered and
decided expeditiously and taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.
6. Though the Administrative Officer, Education Department (Primary),
Pune Municipal Corporation has been made a party Respondent to the present
Petition and considering the limited relief that the Petitioner seeks in the petition
and although there being no written opposition/reply of the respondents, we are of
the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents considering the
nature of the orders we propose to pass. The following order would serve the ends
of justice:-
ORDER
i. Respondent No.2 the Administrative Officer, Education Department
(Primary), Pune Municipal Corporation is directed to consider and decide the
pending application dated 26 July 2022 of the Petitioner, as per law and as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date
this order is made available to the said Respondent by the Petitioner.
ii. Let all the parties be heard.
iii. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
iv. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Laxmi
Checking your session…