Bombay High Court
ANUJA MANGESH SARAFversusTHE SECRETARY (NAGRIK SEVA MANDAL) AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution and any interim relief is vacated.
Summary
Anuja Mangesh Saraf filed a writ petition challenging a School Tribunal order dated 5 September 2005 that dismissed her appeal against a termination order dated 1 July 2002. The Tribunal had held that she was appointed on a year‑to‑year basis to a post reserved for the Backward Class (BC) and that respondents 4 and 5, belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC), could fill the vacancy. The petition was admitted in September 2006 but no interim relief was granted and the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. The High Court observed that the petitioner appeared disinterested and dismissed the writ petition for non‑prosecution, also vacating any interim relief that might have been in force.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for non‑prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear
- Whether interim or ad‑interim relief granted earlier should stand when the petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution
Subjects
- writ petition
- non‑prosecution
- termination of service
- reservation
- backward class
- interim relief
Judgment
7.as.wp.9332.2005.doc
Digitally
signed by
VINA
VINA ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KHADPE Date:
2026.09.01
18:55:09 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO.9332 of 2005
Anuja Mangesh Saraf … Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary (Nagrik Seva Mandal) & ors. … Respondents
***
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the Respondent-State.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 01 SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. On 17.8.2026, the following order was passed :
“ 1. The petition is filed challenging order of School
Tribunal dated 05.09.2005 dismissing the
Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner had filed the
appeal for setting aside an oral order of termination
dated 01.07.2002.
2. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has found
that the Petitioner was appointed on year-to-year
basis on the post reserved for backward class (BC).
The tribunal has also found that Respondent Nos.4
and 5 belongs to other backward class (OBC) and as
such available to meet the situation of non
availability of candidate belonging to backward
class (BC).
3. Record shows that petition was admitted in
September, 2006 however, no interim relief was
granted.
4. Nobody is appearing for the Petitioner.
Vina Khadpe 1
7.as.wp.9332.2005.doc
5. In such circumstances, stand over to 24.08.2026 as
a last opportunity. To be listed 'for dismissal'
2. Today the matter is listed for dismissal, however, nobody is
appearing for the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner is not
interested in proceeding with the matter.
3. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.
Interim / ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Vina Khadpe 2
Checking your session…