Pradeep Narsingrao Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:23765-DB 1 950.WP.10757.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10757 OF 2025 PRADEEP NARSINGRAO SHINDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Radikar Akshay Suresh Addl. G.P. for Respondents/State : Mr. S.K. Tambe ...
CORAM
: MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 04.09.2025 PER COURT:
1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned AGP appears for all the respondents.
2.
This petition was taken up for hearing out of turn due to extreme urgency projected on behalf of the petitioner. 3.
By this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction for inclusion his name in the list of candidates to be interviewed for the post of President of the Child Welfare Committee, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, and for the post of Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 4.
According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the requirements as per the advertisement for being called for interview with regard to the said posts. It is the case of the petitioner that, being a practising lawyer since the year 2008, he has more than seven years' continuous experience in practice to be qualified
2 950.WP.10757.25.odt for the said posts, and therefore there can be no impediment for granting relief sought in the present petition.
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in all fairness submits that perhaps the reason why he has not been called for the interview is because of his background as a Member of the Child Welfare Committee, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, when recently on 30.06.2025, an incident occurred in a child care home where 9 minor girl inmates, on their own, left the child welfare home. This Court took suo moto cognizance of the incident and certain directions were issued, in pursuance of which the concerned authority recommended suspension of the entire Child Welfare Committee, of which the petitioner was a member. This recommendation was made on 14.07.2025. But, eventually on 11.08.2025, the Section Officer of the Department of Women and Child Welfare of the Respondent - State simply directed that the extension granted to the said Committee stood cancelled.
6.
The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice that the petitioner was appointed by an order dated 02.06.2022, on the post of Member of the Child Welfare Committee, for a period of three years, and when the incident took place, the term had already expired and the Committee, of which the petitioner was a member, was merely granted extension. 7.
It was submitted that when notice was issued to the petitioner and other members of the Child Welfare Committee, appropriate responses were also submitted and the matter stands at that stage. In this backdrop, it was submitted that even if the concerned authorities had issued notice to the petitioner as being a member of the erstwhile Child Welfare Committee, that in
3 950.WP.10757.25.odt itself cannot be a ground to hold that the petitioner is disqualified from holding the post for which he has applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. 8.
On the other hand, the learned AGP informs this Court that in the context of the aforesaid incident and notices being issued to the President and Members of the said Child Welfare Committee, a report has been prepared and, thereupon, recently on 02.09.2025 a further notice has been issued to the President and Members of the said Committee, inter alia stating that they stand disqualified from holding the post of Members or any other such post concerning the Child Welfare Committee. The said notice is yet to be received by the petitioner.
9.
We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the documents tendered across the bar by the learned AGP, including the notice dated 02.09.2025 issued to the petitioner and others. A perusal of the preliminary report prepared in pursuance of inquiry conducted with regard to the aforesaid serious incident shows that the minor girl inmates have given certain statements, which prima facie indicate the extent of seriousness of the incident and the manner in which the girl children suffered at the child care home, due to which they decided to suddenly move out of the Child Care Home on 30.06.2025. The aforesaid material brought to our notice prima facie indicates the manner in which the then President and Members of the Child Welfare Committee indulged in acts of omission and commission that resulted in the aforesaid serious incident. It is in the face of such material that the concerned authorities have thought it fit not to permit the petitioner to be interviewed in pursuance of his application for appointment of the post of President of the
4 950.WP.10757.25.odt Child Welfare Committee and/or Member of the Juvenile Justice Board at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
10.
It cannot be said that there is no nexus of the aforesaid material with the act undertaken by the respondent authorities. This Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, is unable to find any positive case in favour of the petitioner to issue a direction for inclusion of his name among persons to be interviewed for the said post. The petitioner has failed to make out a case in his favour for the writ court to issue such a positive direction, particularly in the light of the serious material brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the respondent authorities.
11.
In view of the above, we decline to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) habeeb/