Avinash Asaram Kuwar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:19539-DB ( 1 ) 922 WP 3237 OF 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 922 WRIT PETITION NO. 3237 OF 2026 AVINASH ASARAM KUWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Y. V. Gandhe i/b. Mr. P. D. Bachate, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ...

CORAM

: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

DATE : 29.04.2026 PER COURT :- .

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2.

The fact which is not in dispute is that the petitioner, who is Shikshan Sevak, had approached the Appellate Authority/Grievance Committee established under the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024 and, after hearing all the concerned persons, the Committee has taken a decision on 26.05.2025. The respondent - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, has been directed to reconsider the decision in respect of the petitioner and, while doing so, the Appellate Authority has set aside all the

( 2 ) 922 WP 3237 OF 2026 orders passed by the Education Officer in respect of the petitioner. The Education Officer was supposed to take a decision within a period of fifteen

(15) days from 26.05.2025; however, no such decision has been taken till date. Hence, the petition.

3.

The learned AGP, upon instructions from respondent No.3 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, submits that the said decision would be taken within a period of four (4) weeks from today. We accept the said statement as an undertaking.

4.

We direct respondent No.3 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, to take a decision pursuant to the order passed by the Grievance Committee dated 26.05.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from today.

5.

We also make it clear that respondent No.3, if fails to take the said decision within the stipulated period, then, apart from action for contempt of Court, he would be liable for heavy costs. 6.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) PRW