Anil Bhimrao Suroshe v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2026:BHC-AUG:11077-DB {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 493 OF 2026 IN WP/5026/2024 Anil Bhimrao Suroshe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others .....
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for State Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and 4 .......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 13th MARCH, 2026 ORDER :
1.
By filing writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.05.2024, thereby calling upon the petitioner to submit caste validity certificate of Scheduled Tribe category within six months from the date of the order. It is further stated that if the petitioner fails to submit such certificate, his service will be terminated without prior notice. 2.
Vacation Court by order dated 22.05.2024 granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause C and D which read thus: "C) Pending hearing and the final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the execution, implementation and operation of the Letter/Order dated 09.05.2024
{2} (Exhibit 'N'), issued by the respondent No. 2 and Letter/Communication dated 09.05.2024 (Exhibit 'O'), issued by the respondent No. 3 may kindly be stayed to the extent of asking the petitioner to submit the Caste Validity Certificate within six months. D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the respondents herein, their servant, agents or anybody claiming through them may kindly be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner on account of non-submission of the Caste Validity Certificate by any manner whatsoever." 3.
The petition came to be dismissed in default for non removal of office objections vide order dated 26.07.2024. Thereafter, by order dated 13.03.2025, petitioner's services were terminated for non submission of caste validity certificate. Petitioner, therefore filed Contempt Petition No. 540 of 2025, which was disposed of as his services were already terminated after the dismissal of petition in default.
4.
Now, the petitioner prays for restoration of his writ petition at its original position, by recalling order dated 26.07.2024. 5.
In view of termination of the petitioner, the petition filed by him is rendered infructuous and therefore we are not inclined to entertain the prayer of the petitioner for recall of the order and restoration of the
{3} writ petition. Civil Application is therefore dismissed. 6.
The petitioner is at liberty to challenge his termination order by filing appropriate proceedings.
(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde