Bombay High Court
HEMANT RAMCHANDRA KAMBLEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the proposals for appointing the petitioners as part‑time teachers within a stipulated period.
Summary
Five writ petitions were filed under Article 226 seeking that the State's education authority (Respondent No.2) accept proposals submitted by the management (Respondent Nos.3 & 4) for the allotment of Shalartha I.D. positions to the petitioners as part‑time teachers in a junior college and release the corresponding grant‑in‑aid. The Court held that Respondent No.2 must consider the proposals, hear all parties, and decide on the appointments within four weeks, directing the management to submit any pending proposals within two weeks. The order kept all contentions open and imposed no costs. The petitions were disposed by directing the administrative steps, not by granting or denying the appointments outright.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can, under Article 226, direct an administrative authority to accept and decide on proposals for appointment of part‑time teachers.
- Whether the Court can impose a time‑bound deadline on the authority to consider and decide the proposals.
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ petition
- Part‑time teacher appointment
- Administrative law
- Grant‑in‑aid
- Shalartha I.D.
- Judicial direction
- Time‑bound order
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT PRASHANT
VILAS RANE
401.DOC
VILAS Date:
RANE 2026.08.18
19:32:03
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9741 OF 2023
Anil Babu Sakpal ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9745 OF 2023
Leena Vilas Tambade ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9742 OF 2023
Hemant Ramchandra Kamblekar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9747 OF 2023
Ketkar Sanjivani Anant ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9744 OF 2023
Surbhi Suhas Mahamunkar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Sagar A. Mane, for Petitioner.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. Govt.Pleader with Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP with Ms. P. M. J.
Deshpande, AGP for the State.
Mr. Kirankumar Phakade with Amit Mane, for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in all matters.
_________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 17 AUGUST 2026.
Page 1 of 3
17 August 2026
P.V.Rane
401.DOC
P.C.
1. These are five petitions filed by the petitioners raising similar issue and
hence, they are being disposed of by a common order. For convenience, the
substantive prayers in Writ Petition No.9741 of 2023 are required to be noted
which read thus:
“a) Rule Nisi be issued and records and proceedings be called for;
b) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
direct the Respondents No.3 & 4 to submit the proposal to Respondent No.2 for
allotment of Shalartha I.D. to the Petitioner as a Part Time Teacher in Respondent
No.4 Junior College and further be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 to accept
the proposal and decide the same for allotment of Shalartha I.D. of the Petitioner
in the post of Part Time Teacher in the Respondent No.4 Junior College and to
release the grant-in-aid for payment of monthly salary in pay scale from the said
date, with all consequential benefits.”
2. The only prayer in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is that the proposals which have been submitted by
respondent Nos.3 and 4 – the management to respondent No.2 for the allotment
of Shalartha I.Ds. to the petitioners as Part Time Teachers in respondent No.4 –
Junior College be accepted and decided by respondent No.2 in accordance with
law.
3. We are of the opinion that respondent No.2 needs to take appropriate
steps to consider the proposals as forwarded by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and to
Page 2 of 3
17 August 2026
P.V.Rane
401.DOC
take a decision after hearing all the parties on the proposal for allotment of
Shalartha I.Ds. to the petitioners.
4. Let this exercise be undertaken within four weeks from today. There shall
not be any further extension.
5. Needless to observe that, in the event, the proposals are yet to be
submitted by the management, let the same be submitted within a period of two
weeks from today.
6. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
7. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
17 August 2026
P.V.Rane
Checking your session…