Vaishali Madhukarrao Shimpi v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

924wp3031-26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 924 WRIT PETITION NO. 3031 OF 2026 Vaishali Madhukarrao Shimpi

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others ...

Mr. Wakade Ramesh I., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents State CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

Dated : 16th April, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.

2.

By the impugned order, the approval of the petitioner's promotion to the post of Headmaster has been turned down on the ground that there is dispute in the management and the Change Reports are pending.

3.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that during the course of hearing before Respondent No.3, along-with the application dated 21.03.2025, the petitioner had filed the copy of the decision in Vikramaditya s/o Ram More Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No. 351 of 2022 with companion applications, decided on 04.02.2025, wherein, this Court had considered as to what is to be done, when there is dispute in the management and Change Reports are pending. In the said decision, the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Navnath s/o Narsing Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,2021 (6) Mh.L.J. 118 was also considered. He submits that inspite of reliance on these decisions, Respondent No.3

924wp3031-26 has taken the same view. He also relies on the decision in case of Charansing Ramsing Jarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary & others, Writ Petition No. 737/2026 dated 23.01.2026, wherein, after taking note of Vikramaditya s/o Ram More, this Court had observed that, Respondent No.3 therein has not taken note of those decisions and it amounts to contempt of Court. We had not taken cognizance of the same at that time, but if such act persists with Respondent No.3 and 4 or any similar authority, then we may take cognizance of such disobedience. He points out that Respondent No.3 in that matter and Respondent No.3 in the present matter is same and, therefore, we are convinced with the submissions and observe that time has come to take action now. Before that, we would like to hear Respondent No.3.

4.

Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP waives for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

5.

Notice of Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 is made returnable on 30.04.2026.

6.

The learned AGP is directed to direct Respondent No.3 to remain present personally before this court on the returnable date. 7.

The petitioner is permitted to serve the other respondents personally, by permissible mode and if service is effected, then to file service affidavit on record.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI J.) JPChavan