Uzma Sadaf Zainuddin Shaikh v. Union Of India

10+11-CP-47-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (SR. NO.10) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.47 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5783 OF 2022 Uzma Sadaf Zainuddin Shaikh & Ors.

....Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors.

....Respondents AND (SR. NO.11) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.48 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5784 OF 2022 Dineshkumar Ishan Uikey & Ors.

....Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors.

....Respondents ---- Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore a/w Mr. Arman Ansari i/b. Ms. Suchita J. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Mr. Santosh Mali and Mr. Digambar Kawale, Advocate for Respondent-BMC in CP/47/2026.

Mr. Santosh Mali a/w Mr. Digambar Kawale, Advocate for Respondent-BMC in CP/48/2026.

---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2026 P.C. :- 1.

Despite the passage of almost 18 days, only 49 amongst the Petitioners whose names are involved in the TET Exam Result Kartikeya

10+11-CP-47-2026.odt Scam, have given the Undertaking in terms of our order dated 5th February, 2026, which was a condition precedent to be followed by Police Verification and then to be granted employment. 28 Petitioners have shown their reluctance. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that earlier not even these 49 Petitioners were willing to give an Undertaking despite the order of this Court. 2.

As such, we are now allotting a further three days to these remaining 28 Petitioners to give their Undertaking in terms of the order of the High Court, failing which, their names shall be deleted from the list, and our order thereafter would lose its efficacy to the extent of those who do not give their Undertaking. 3.

Compliance with regard to 49 Petitioners is recorded. This Petition need not be listed before us for recording further compliance because of the conduct of the remainder Petitioners. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Kartikeya