ARCHANA DINKAR JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39723-DB


                                              1               2-wp 10168-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 10168 OF 2026

                 Swati Dnyandev Jagtap                                   .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra
                 Through Its Principal Secretary And Others              .. Respondents

                                             WITH
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 9003 OF 2026

                 Santosh Bhausaheb Shelke And Others                     .. Petitioners

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra
                 Through Its Principal Secretary And Others              .. Respondents

                                                  WITH
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 7597 OF 2026

                 Pradip Sitaram Gujar And Others                         .. Petitioners

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra
                 Through Its Principal Secretary And Others              .. Respondents

                                                  WITH
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 9006 OF 2026

                 Archana Dinkar Jadhav                                   .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra
                 Through Its Principal Secretary And Others              .. Respondents
                              2              2-wp 10168-2026.odt


Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vivekanand
Bade, Advocate i/b Mr. Ketan D. Pote, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate
for Respondent No. 3.

                      CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                              JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                       DATE       :   01st SEPTEMBER, 2026.

PER COURT :-

1.   Heard the parties at length.


2.   Though much arguments are advanced on the locus standi

of the petitioners, the right vested with the petitioners etc. the

arguments are also advanced on the communication on the part of

the management. In turn, the management submits that it is the

Education Officer who has not taken steps in time in spite of

request by the management.


3.   The issue is that for the year 2022 the respondent

management had undertaken the recruitment process through

Pavitra Portal. The requisition was sent to send candidates in a

ratio of 1:10. The names were forwarded to the management in

the said ratio. The management conducted the selection process

i.e. conducted the interviews and submitted the list to the
                              3            2-wp 10168-2026.odt


Education Officer for further action. However, in the meantime,

certain complaints were made to the management and publicity

was also given through media that there are certain irregularities

that have taken place in the recruitment process. In that view,

looking to the reputation of the management and institution, the

management passed a resolution on 06.08.2025 to cancel the

recruitment process itself. They further resolved to make a request

to the Education Commissionerate, Pune that instead of sending

names in the ratio of 1:10, the names of candidates be send in the

ratio of 1:1 so that nothing needs to be done at the end of

management and such persons can be given appointment

straightway.


4.   The grievance of the petitioners is that in the said process

they had participated. However, though the entire process is

completed, even the results are not declared of the outcome of the

selection process and in between the management has cancelled

the process. A ground is taken of legitimate expectation that

having participated in the selection process they have legitimate

expectation that at least result would be made known to them.

Total 1814 candidates were sent, out of only 146 candidates could
                               4              2-wp 10168-2026.odt


be selected as per their information and as per the inquiry

conducted by the authorities. It is their grievance that still they are

not given the appointment and they are not given the knowledge

as to whether their names appear in the list of selected candidates

or not. It is further seen that the management had also pursuant

to earlier resolution thereafter again made inquiry with the

Education Officer by communications dated 03.10.2025, another

letter dated 03.10.2025, 21.11.2025 and 18.02.2026 for various

vacancies   and    requested    the   Education     Officer         to   give

confirmation after verification of the documents.


5.    This Court finds that, without going into other aspects, since

all these facts are admitted we direct the Education Officer to

process the request made by the management in the above

communications and communicate decision to them before

07.09.2026 i.e. the date on which the candidates from subsequent

recruitment process are likely to join to avoid inconvenience. With

this workable arrangement this Court finds that the petitions can

be disposed of. Thus, the writ petitions stand disposed of.


6.    We expect the Education Officer to take decision on or

before 07.09.2026.
                                  5             2-wp 10168-2026.odt


7.       This order is strictly with reference to the present petitioners

who are before this Court pursuant to recruitment process of 2022

without affecting the subsequent processes and if some others

have joined pursuant to subsequent process they shall not be

disturbed. The decision of the Education Officer be communicated

to the petitioners as well.


8.       It is made clear that, this order is passed only in the peculiar

facts of this case without touching to other aspects of the matter.

This order shall not be treated as precedent and shall not be cited

as precedent. This order is restricted to these petitioners only and

will not be made applicable to other persons who are not before

this Court.


9.       Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )



P.S.B.