BHAGWANT GOVINDRAO ZAMBRE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRIMARY SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                    901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 8875 OF 2026

1. Bhagwat Govindrao Zambre
Age 33 occ- NA
R/a- Ward No. 16, House No. 1264,
Jay Bhawani Galli, At-Post-Chakur,
Tal- Chakur, Dist-Latur-413513

2. Dipali Kashina Aher
Age-44 Occ-Na
At-Post Ganesh Nagar,
Niphad, 422303

3. Vaishali Shrirang Mane
Age-38 Occ-Na
R/a At Saraf Nagar, Behind
Sachdev Hospital, Jalna Ambad Road,
Jalna -431203

4. Ravindra Rambhau Wadhai
Age-38 Occ- Na
R/a At-Gondeda, Post-Kewada, Tal-Chimur,
Dist-Charndapur 442904

5. Sunita Dadarao Satwadhar
Age-37 Occ-
R/Aat Dastapur Near Zp School, 431401

6. Baburao Devidas Rankhambe
Age- 38 Occ-Na
R/a Plot No. 160, Main Road, Near Bus Stand,
Barbada, Tq Naigaon- 431602

7. Nagorao Rangnath Barade
Age-37, Occ- Na
R/a At Post Pethshiwani, Tq Palam,
Dist- Parbhani-431720

8. Vaibhav Gyanba Bhalshankar
Age- 36 Occ-N/a
R/a Navnath Nagar Midc, Bahirwadi 431122

9. Ramesh Datta Waghmare

                                Page 1 of 14
Shivgan
                                                     901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



Age-36 Occ- N/a
R/a At Post Bothi, Tq Umri,
Dist-Nanded – 431805

10. Ganesh Ramnath Sadgir
Age- 36 Occ- Na
R/a Home No. 112, At Post- Kombhalane,
Tal-Akole 422601

11. Vikram Kishor Sawarkar
Age-35 Occ- Na
R/Aat Post Shirasgaon, Pandhari,
Ta Ner, 445102

12. Kalyani Gulabrao Ingale
Age- 36 Occ- Na
R/A flat No.08, Sanket Apartment,
Kamlanagar, Kamatwada – 422010

13. Vasant Shantaram Jadhav
Age- 36 Occ- Na
At Post Shelu, Tal – Karjat, Dist- Raigad,
Near Shelu Railway Station 410101

14. Arun Anil Mandage
Age- 33 Occ- Na
R/Aat Post Samudrawani, Dharashiv- 413501

15. Niket Dilip Rathod
Age- 34 Occ-Na
R/a At Deurwadi, Postchikhali, Izara, Arni- 445103

16. Sharad Keshaw Bhurse
Age- 35 Occ- Na
R/a At-Raitwari, Post-Keroda,
Tal-Saoli, Pin- 441225

17. Sanket Shankarrao Mirjapure
Age- 33 Occ- Na
R/At Umri, Pathar, Post- Mahalungi,
Pin-445103

18. Manoj Dadarao Kachare
Age- 35 Occ- Na
R/Aat-Post-Rajegaon, Majalgaon,
Beed, 431129

                                   Page 2 of 14
Shivgan
                                                   901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



19. Dashrath Sanjay Sarawade
Age-35 Occ-Na
R/a At Post-Upla, Dist-Osmanabad,
Maharashtra 413501

20. Jyotsna Sunil Pangare
Age- 35 Occ- Na
R/A near Hanuman Mandir, Tuksai,
Khambewadi, Rajgarh, Maharashtra 410203

21. Deni Jagdish Dhawale
Age-36 Occ- Na
At Dhundeshivani, Post Amirza,
Tah Gadchiroli, Dhunde, Shivni,
Gadchiroli 442605

22. Saurabh Murlidhar Tarare
Age- 26 Occ- Na
At-Belegata, Post-Chikhli, Tah Mul 441212

23. Sawata Sahebrao Mule
Age- 35 Occ- Na
R/a At Post Rajewadi, Thl Majalgaon 431131

24. Rupali Nanasaheb Somwanshi
Age- 39 Occ- Na
R/a Sundarpur Kathargaon
Niphad Nashik, 422303

25. MurlidharVishwnath Shinde
Age- 35 Occ- Na
R/a117/1 Shirdhon, Nanded, 431707

26. Saurabh Suresh Khurd
Age- 28 Occ- Na
R/at Yeoti Penur, Mohol, Solapur, 413248

27. Shailesh Duryodhan Patle
Age- 32 Occ- Na
R/a At Hardali Post, Mitewani Tah Tumsar, 441912

28. Rupali Ashok Ahire
Age- 36 Occ- Na
R/a Flat No. 712, Tirupati Tower, Sector 18,
Bulk Land 2, Shivtej Nagar, Chichwad 411019



                                  Page 3 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                    901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



29. Lilesh Dulichand Kolhe
Age- 43 Occ- Na
R/Award No, 02, Near Hanuman Mandir at
Post Goregaon, 441801

30. Bramhand Govindrao More
Age- Occ-NA
R/a At Bramhanwada Post Mugat
Tq Nanded 431806                                                ...Petitioners

          Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Secretary, School Education and
Sports Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai-400 032

2. Education Commissioner, Pune
01st Floor, Central Building, Dr. Annie
Besant Road, Agarkar Nagar,
Pune – 411 001                                                  ...Respondents
                                     _______

Ms Purva S. Pradhan, with Vishal V. Shinde, for Petitioners.
Mr O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., with Priyanka Chavan, AGP, for Respondents-
State.                               _______

                              CORAM:         G. S. KULKARNI &
                                             DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                   RESERVED ON:              13th AUGUST 2026
                PRONOUNCED ON:               25th AUGUST 2026

JUDGMENT: (Per Dr Neela Gokhale, J.)

1.        By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the Petitioners seek a relief that the order dated 26 th May 2026 passed by the State

Government be declared to be arbitrary and illegal, and the same be quashed and

set aside. The Petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the Respondents' refusal to fill



                                    Page 4 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                        901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



10% of the teacher posts that remained vacant in the Teacher Aptitude and

Intelligence Test (‘TAIT-2022’) recruitment process as well as posts that remained

vacant due to absentation, disqualification, vacancies pertaining to ex-servicemen

and other categories, or selected candidates failing to join in Phase-I of the

recruitment.

2.        The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:


     2.1.         This Writ Petition arises out of the TAIT-2022 recruitment process

            conducted by the State of Maharashtra for the appointment of teachers via

            the Pavitra Portal. Applications for TAIT-2022 were invited on 31 st

            January 2023, and the examination was held from 22 nd February 2023.

            Thereafter, candidates were required to complete their self-certification to

            participate in the recruitment process.


     2.2.         The Petitioners claim to qualify for TAIT-2022 and to have

            participated in the recruitment process. However, during Phase-I,

            approximately 10% of the advertised posts remained vacant. Certain posts

            reserved for ex-servicemen and earthquake-affected persons also remained

            vacant due to the lack of eligible candidates from those categories.


     2.3.         The General Administration Department (‘GAD’) considered the

            issue of ex-servicemen’s reservations and directed that only 484 posts

            should remain reserved for ex-servicemen, with the remaining eligible

            vacancies to be de-reserved.


     2.4.         On 10th September 2024, directions were issued to fill the 10%

                                      Page 5 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                      901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



           reserved posts, along with vacancies arising from absence, disqualification

           and non-joining, by eligible and meritorious candidates within the

           applicable categories.


    2.5.         On 13th September 2024, further directions were issued regarding

           Phase-II recruitment, requiring consideration of the 10% reserved posts and

           the remaining vacancies from Phase-I.


    2.6.         On 16th January 2025, the Government directed Zilla Parishads,

           Municipal Corporations and other concerned bodies to proceed with

           Phase-II teacher recruitment. The recruitment was required to take into

           account vacancies arising from absence, disqualification and non-joining of

           candidates.


    2.7.         The Petitioners state that, despite the GAD directions, the

           Respondents failed to properly de-reserve the vacant ex-servicemen and

           other special-category posts, thereby preventing eligible candidates from

           accessing them.


    2.8.         The Petitioners submitted several representations requesting the

           Respondents to fill the 10% reserved posts, as well as vacancies arising from

           absence, disqualification and non-joining, from eligible TAIT-2022

           candidates. However, on 26th May 2026, the Government of Maharashtra,

           School Education and Sports Department, issued the impugned

           Government letter/order concerning the remaining vacancies arising from

           the TAIT-2022 recruitment. In the impugned Government letter, the State


                                     Page 6 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                       901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



          acknowledged that 10% of the posts had been kept vacant during the TAIT-

          2022 recruitment, but referred to subsequent changes in the reservation

          framework, particularly the introduction of 10% SEBC reservation under

          the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward

          Classes Act, 2024, which came into force on 26 th February 2024. The

          Government took the position that the reservation structure had changed

          after the commencement of the earlier recruitment process and that the

          number and nature of vacancies had also changed between the different

          phases. It further considered the subsequent TAIT-2025 recruitment

          process while determining how the remaining vacancies should be dealt

          with. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the State Government's decision to

          refuse to consider the 2022 vacancies while now issuing an advertisement

          to recruit teachers for vacancies published for the year 2025. It is this order,

          which is assailed in the present Writ Petition.

3.        Ms Purva Pradhan, learned counsel, appeared for the Petitioners and Mr

O.A. Chandurkar, learned Additional Government Pleader, represented the State.


Submissions


4.        Ms Pradhan submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a previous

Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2025, filed by a similarly situated candidate, had

directed the Corporation to consider eligible TAIT-2022 candidates, according to

their merit scores, for appointment, based on vacancies as they existed when the

TAIT-2022 was conducted. She submitted that the Petitioners are covered by the



                                     Page 7 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                   901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



said order.

5.        She submitted that, following the GAD's directions issued on 25 th June

2024, the Respondent ought to have de-reserved all posts. She also submitted that,

at the time of publishing Phase II, the posts kept vacant for ex-servicemen and

earthquake-affected candidates in Phase I, due to unavailability, ought to have been

converted to the open general category in accordance with the order dated 4 th

February 2026 passed by this Court. Ms Pradhan further contended that the

vacancies arising from absence, disqualification, non-joining, and unfilled ex-

servicemen/earthquake-affected     categories,   together   with   the   10%      posts

deliberately kept vacant, should be published and filled from the TAIT-2022 pool.

Thus, Ms Pradhan urged the Court to declare the order/letter dated 26th May 2026

to be arbitrary and illegal.

6.        Per contra, Mr Chandurkar submitted that the Government Resolution

dated 10th November 2022 specifically provides that upon declaration of the result

of a subsequent TAIT examination, the score obtained in the earlier TAIT

examination shall cease to be valid for recruitment. The result of TAIT-2025 was

declared on 18th August 2025; therefore, candidates qualified under TAIT-2022

cannot be considered for recruitment undertaken in 2026. Most importantly, he

pointed out that 28 out of 30 Petitioners have appeared for TAIT-2025. It is

settled law that after participating in the recruitment process, one cannot challenge

it on the grounds mentioned in the present petition. Thus, he submitted that the

petitioners have no indefeasible right to claim appointment.




                                  Page 8 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                         901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



Analysis


7.        The fundamental issue before the Court is whether vacancies arising from

the TAIT-2022 recruitment, including the 10% posts kept vacant, vacancies caused

by absence, disqualification, or non-joining, and eligible vacancies requiring de-

reservation, must be offered to TAIT-2022 candidates.

8.        Before we delve into the factual matrix of the matter, it is necessary to

discuss the settled law in the context of the issue involved in the present matter.

The Supreme Court, in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 1, observed that the

State is under no legal duty to fill all or any of the vacancies declared for a

particular post. However, this does not mean the State has a license to act

arbitrarily. Paragraph 7 of the said decision reads as under:-

                        “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
                        notified for appointment and adequate number of
                        candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire
                        an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be
                        legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
                        amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply
                        for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire
                        any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules
                        so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or
                        any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the
                        State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The
                        decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona
                        fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of
                        them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the
                        comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
                        recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.
                        This correct position has been consistently followed by this
                        Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the
                        decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha
                        [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 :(1974) 1 SCR

1 (1991) 3 SCC 47


                                    Page 9 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                       901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



                          165], Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC
                          268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759], or Jatinder Kumar v. State of
                          Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985)
                          1 SCR 899].”


9.        The view taken by the Supreme Court in Shankarsan (supra) is also referred

to with approval in another decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of

Vinodan T & Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. 2. Further, in All India SC &

ST Employees’ Association v. A. Arthur Jeen & Ors.3, the Supreme Court, inter

alia, observed that unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is

under no legal duty to fill all or any other vacancies.

10.       Accordingly, from the decisions above, the legal position which emerges is,

(a) the State or the employer is under no legal obligation to fill up the vacancies

advertised; (b) merely because of selection of a candidate, he does not get

indefeasible right to be appointed; (c) even if a candidate has subjected himself to

interview and physical test and recruitment process is not complete, he shall not

have a vested right to be appointed and (d) even after the completion of

recruitment process, the State or the employer has a right to cancel the recruitment

process once initiated, provided there are valid reasons for the same.

11.       In the facts of the instant case, as analysed on the touchstone of the aforesaid

legal principles, it is clear that the examination notification dated 31 st January 2023

pertaining to TAIT 2022 declared that the marks obtained in the examination

would be considered for recruitment to the post of teachers in all types of schools.

The recruitment process was in accordance with Government Resolution (‘GR’)

2 (2002) 4 SCC 726
3 (2001) 6 SCC 380


                                     Page 10 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                   901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



No. CET.2015/P.Kr.149/TNT-1 dated 7th February 2019, GR dated 10th

November 2022 bearing No. Sankirna-2022/P.Kr 106/TNT-1, and GRs issued

from time to time. The GR dated 10 th November 2022 specifically provided that

upon declaration of the result of a subsequent TAIT examination, the score

obtained in the earlier TAIT examination would cease to be valid for recruitment.

The TAIT-2025 examination was conducted, and results were declared on 18 th

August 2025. Thus, as per the GRs, the marks/evaluation of the candidates who

had appeared for TAIT-2022 cannot be considered for recruitment undertaken in

the year 2026. Moreover, the Petitioners and other candidates were well aware of

the terms and conditions of the examinations; hence, they are now estopped from

demanding consideration of the marks obtained by them in the TAIT-2022

examination to fill the 10% vacancies of Phase I of the examination. In fact, except

Petitioner Nos. 6 and 20, all the other Petitioners have appeared for the next TAIT-

2025, which is giving up all the rights, if any, in respect of the TAIT-2022 also,

their results were declared.

12.       In Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. 4, the Supreme Court

observed that when candidates who appear for an interview, fully aware of the

process, they cannot later resile or somersault, saying that the procedure adopted by

the department is vitiated. A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Om

Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 5, noted that the Petitioner in the Writ

Petition before it, had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the

Petition only after realising that he would not succeed in the examination, held that

4 (2014) 16 SCC 187
5 1986 Supp SCC 285


                                 Page 11 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                   901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



the Petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court.

13.       In the present case, 28 Petitioners have admittedly appeared for the TAIT-

2025 examination, and their results have also been declared. Only two candidates

have not appeared for the said examination. Having appeared and obtained marks

in the subsequent examination, these Petitioners cannot now claim to be

considered for appointment as teachers on the 10% vacancies purported to still

exist in respect of the Phase I recruitment process of the TAIT-2022.

14.       The TAIT examination is an online competitive examination designed to

assess two broad attributes relevant to the selection of teachers, namely aptitude

and intelligence. The purpose of the aptitude component is to assess a candidate’s

suitability in areas relevant to the teaching profession, whereas the intelligence

component is intended to assess the candidate’s reasoning and intellectual ability.

The TAIT score provides only a common merit benchmark for candidates

possessing the requisite qualifications for appointment to the teaching post. Hence,

TAIT by itself is not a qualifying examination but forms an important component

of the merit-based recruitment mechanism prescribed by the State Government.

15.       Candidates are required to upload the necessary information relating to

educational and professional qualifications, etc., as well as the TAIT marks

obtained by them, on the online portal. The respective school managements also

publish the vacancies for recruitment through the prescribed online mechanism,

indicating the necessary particulars of the post available; the eligible candidates

thereafter exercise their choice online by locking their preferences to the

posts/schools for which they are eligible and desirous of being considered.



                                   Page 12 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                    901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



Accordingly, the selection process is undertaken taking into account all relevant

details of the candidate. The system then generates the requisite select

list/recommendations, and the names of selected candidates are recommended to

the concerned school managements for taking further action regarding

appointments in accordance with law.

16.       The concerned authorities have now conducted the TAIT-2025

examination. About 1,70,000 candidates appeared for the said examination. They

are presently awaiting recruitment opportunities. The recruitment process is at its

final stage. As mentioned above, 28 Petitioners have also appeared for the TAIT-

2025 examinations. Considering that the Petitioners have approached this Court

belatedly in July, 2026, after having appeared for the TAIT-2025 examination, we

do not find it expedient to upend the entire recruitment process at this stage and

direct the State to consider these Petitioners for the 10% vacancies stated to be

available pertaining to the Phase I of the recruitment process held under TAIT-

2022. In any case, Mr Chandurkar, on instructions, states that it is too late for the

Petitioners to seek a direction that the State should fill the vacancies that remained

to be filled during the Phase I recruitment process. He also stated that this was due

to changed Government policies; SEBC reservations have now been introduced in

the recruitment process.

17.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to direct the

Respondents to fill the vacancies of the Phase I recruitment process. However, since

two of the Petitioners have not appeared for the TAIT-2025 examinations and as

they had not given up their rights by appearing in the TAIT-2025 examination, we



                                  Page 13 of 14
Shivgan
                                                                      901-WP-8875-2026-2.DOC



accept the statement as made by Mr Chandurkar that the Respondents would

consider the two Petitioners, namely, Baburao Devidas Rankhambe, Petitioner No.

6, and Jyotsna Sunil Pangare, Petitioner No. 20, for appointment to the unfilled

vacancies in the Phase I of the recruitment process.

18.          The Writ Petition is thus dismissed except qua the said two Petitioners. No

costs.



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


SHAMBHAVI
NILESH
SHIVGAN
Digitally signed by
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
SHIVGAN
Date: 2026.08.25
13:18:13 +0530




                                      Page 14 of 14
Shivgan