Kishor Raghunath Chaudhar v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:16835-DB (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 WRIT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2026 Kishor Raghunath Chaudhar ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary and Others .....Respondents .....

Mr. S. P. Salgar h/f Mr. Waybhase Gorakshnath Tukaram, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for the Respondents - State Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 .....

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

DATE : 18th April, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

The Petitioner has challenged the communication dated 21.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.2. However, it appears that the prayer is misconceived as Respondent No.2 is not the appointing authority. Since the Petitioner is an ex-armyman, he might have approached Respondent No.2. According to the Petitioner, he was appointed as a Staff Male Nurse under the order dated 06.06.2024 from ex-armyman quota. At that time, he had also applied for other different posts and in view of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2016, had submitted a self-

(2) declaration to the appointing authority. When the recruitment process was carried out by Respondent No.3 for the posts of Arogya Sevak, his name appeared in the final list under the exservicemen quota (open). However, according to the Petitioner, the appointment order has not yet been issued to him. 2.

It appears that the Petitioner has made several representations to Respondent No.3 through e-mails; however, the same have not been decided. In these circumstances, we had asked the learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar for Respondent No.3 to take instructions from Respondent No.3 when those representations would be decided. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.3, upon instructions, submits that the said representations would be decided within a period of two weeks from today.

3.

We reiterate that the communication issued by Respondent No.2 has nothing to do with any opinion that might have been given by Respondent No.2, nor does it have any connection with the appointing procedure undertaken by Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is bound by the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2016, and the Petitioner has duly adhered to the same.

(3) When the Petitioner's name has already been included in the final list, only the last part is required to be considered by Respondent No.3.

4.

We dispose of the writ petition by directing Respondent No.3 to decide the representations of the Petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today, in view of the observations made by this Court.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE Sameer