Dhansing Ramsing Rajput And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 1817 OF 2026 RAGHUNATH SHANKAR ZAWARE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 902 WRIT PETITION NO. 1956 OF 2026 DHANSING RAMSING RAJPUT AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr. N.P. Ghanwat and Mr. B.S. Doifode, Advocates for the petitioners in respective petitions.

Mr. S.J. Salgare, AGP for the respondent-State. Mr. V.B. Kulkarni h/f. Mr. Shantanu Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP No. 1817/2026.

Mr. S.R. Dheple, Advocate for respondent No.3 in WP 1956/2026.

CORAM

: KISHORE C. SANT & SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.

DATE : 23.02.2026 PC :- 01.

Not on Board. By circulation, taken on Board. 02.

These petitions are filed by the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the list of teachers to be considered for promotion. These petitions were entertained by this Court as the regular Bench on 20.02.2026 was not available. This Court on that day, had considered order passed by this Court, Bench at Nagpur.

03.

Now all the parties fairly conceded before this Court that in

( 2 ) the petition at Nagpur, on verification, it is found that in that petition, the petitioners are the teachers who have acquired TET qualification and still their names were not included in the list of candidates for the promotional post. In the present petitions, the petitioners have not yet acquired TET qualification. It is, therefore, prayed that order needs to be modified to the extent of grant of interim relief. 04.

Learned AGP submits that the petitioners in-fact had misled this Court by obtaining interim relief and prays for imposing heavy costs. Since the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Shinde in WP No.1956/2026 has tendered apology for making statement without properly verifying contents of the petition at Nagpur, this Court finds that costs need not be imposed.

05.

Now the regular Bench is available. Considering the above position and statement made at the Bar, we deem it proper to recall the order dated 20.02.2026. Therefore, the order dated 20.02.2026 stands recalled. The action taken pursuant to order dated 20.02.2026 stands vitiated.

06.

The petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate Bench.

07.

Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

( 3 ) snk/2026/Feb26/wp1817.26