Shreyas Shrikant Kulkarni v. The State Of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary And ORS
Sneha Chavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6696 of 2025 Shreyas Shrikant Kulkarni
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary And Ors
...Respondents
SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12608 OF 2025 by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2025.11.25 19:08:36 +0530 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6696 of 2025 Pravinkumar s/o Parshuram Naik and Anr. ... Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Shreyas Shrikant Kulkarni ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6698 of 2025 Sachin Dilip Kadam
...Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary Maharashtra Public Service Commission And Anr
...Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12612 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6698 of 2025 Pravinkumar s/o Parshuram Naik and Anr. ... Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Sachin Dilip Kadam ... Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary Maharashtra Public Service Commission And Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Ritvik Joshi, for the Petitioners.
Mrs. Ashwini Purav, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State in WP/6696/2025 Ms. Reena Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State in WP/6698/2025.
Mr. Vijay Dhakne, for the Applicants/Intervenor.
CORAM:
SUMAN SHYAM & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED:
24th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PC:- 1.
These Writ Petitions are directed against interim orders passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ('MAT' for short) whereby interim relief was declined to them. 2.
Ms. Salunkhe, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent/State submits that some more time is required to file reply in connected Writ Petition No. 6698 of 2025. 3.
Mr. Vijay Dhakne, learned Counsel for the appearing for intervenor in both the Writ Petitions submits that he would have no objection, if time as prayed for by learned AGP is granted. Mr. Dhakne however, submits that since in both the Writ Petitions there are only two Applicants, one of whom belongs to the open category (in WP No. 6696/2025) and other to the Scheduled Caste category (in WP No. 6698/2025), there can be no justification for stalling the entire recruitment process, thereby causing prejudice in the rights of his clients. On such ground, Mr. Dhakne has sought for modification of the interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed by this Court by confining the same only to two parts.
4.
Responding to the above, Mr. Ritvik Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in the ultimate analysis if his client succeeds, then the same may disturb the seniority. Therefore, the ad-interim order be maintained as it stands today. 5.
After hearing learned Counsel for the both sides, we are of the view that since there are only two writ petitioners in the two Writ Petitions, hence, even if they succeed in the original applications pending before the learned MAT, they can at best fill up two posts and no further. As such there can be no legal justification to stall the entire recruitment process. We, therefore, grant leave to the Respondent Authority to proceed with the selection process and to fill up the vacancies by leaving 2 posts, one in the open category and other in the scheduled Caste category, vacant thus awaiting the outcome of the Original Application Nos. 502/2025 and 503/2025.
6.
We also make it clear that if the writ petitioners succeeds in the Original Applications and get an order for their appointments, their interests insofar as seniority position is concerned, would remain protected by this order of the Court.
7.
We also request the learned MAT to expeditiously decide the Original Applications and pass final order therein. 8.
With the above observations, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {