TUKARAM VITTHAL GIRI AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR.ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT AND ORS — WP/4011/2026
Case under The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,1961 Section NA. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 10th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010148652026
Filing Number
WP/8584/2026
Filing Date
25-Mar-2026
Registration No
WP/4011/2026
Registration Date
26-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri
Bench Type
Division
Category
OTHER SERVICE MATTERS ( 66 )
Sub-Category
NON TEACHING STAFF ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Off
Last updated 02-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TUKARAM VITTHAL GIRI AND ORS
Adv. Padmaja Malgaonkar
-
2.BAPU BALU SARODE
-
3.RAHUL MOHANRAO RATHOD
-
4.VINOD BALASAHEB CHAVARE
-
5.GAJANAN LAXMAN GIRI
-
6.JOTIRAM BHARTARINATH SHINDE
-
7.SWAPNIL HARIBHAU RASANE
-
8.PRAVIN ISHWAR DORLIKAR
-
9.VAIBHAV BALAJI BONDAR
-
10.NATHRAO UTTAMRAO SURYAWANSHI
-
11.BALAJI RAMDAS SHELKE
-
12.AMOL MAHADEV BORKAR
-
13.HARSHAL HARIBHAU DALE
-
14.SUHAS SURESH KUSMAWAR
-
15.AJAY SHIVAJIRAO LAVHALE
-
16.TATYARAM GORAKH SHINDE
-
17.SANTOSH BHAGAWAN KHEDEKAR
-
18.SANTOSH SHRIMANT DEVKATE
-
19.PRADEEP SHAHADEO TANDALE
-
20.SHASHIKANT SOPAN NILE
-
21.SUDARSHAN NARAYAN SAWANT
-
22.ARJUN RAMKISAN JADHAV
-
23.RAJRATNA NAMDEVRAO SAWANT
-
24.SANTOSH UDHAO KULMETHE
-
25.ANIL BABANRAO INDALKAR
-
26.SANDEEP KONDIBA SANAP
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR.ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT AND ORS
-
2.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINICPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
-
3.THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COUNCIL OF EXAMINATIONS THR. ITS COMMISSIONER
-
4.THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) PUNE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. MantriView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed four consolidated writ petitions challenging the eligibility criteria for the Maharashtra Cluster Head Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2025-2026, holding that the cut-off date for qualifications is 1st January 2026 (not 1st January 2025) and that TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) qualification is mandatory for all candidates seeking promotion to Cluster Head positions. The court applied a pragmatic approach based on peculiar circumstances—including the exam's six-year gap, a Supreme Court mandate on TET requirements issued just before the exam, and the need to minimize hardship to 38,558 candidates who appeared for the examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. MantriView PDF
-
02-Apr-2026
Part-Heard
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri
-
01-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. MantriView PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
Part-Heard
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri
-
30-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. MantriView PDF
-
30-Mar-2026
Fresh Admission
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri
-
27-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/4011/2026
Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed four consolidated writ petitions challenging the eligibility criteria for the Maharashtra Cluster Head Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2025-2026, holding that the cut-off date for qualifications is 1st January 2026 (not 1st January 2025) and that TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) qualification is mandatory for all candidates seeking promotion to Cluster Head positions. The court applied a pragmatic approach based on peculiar circumstances—including the exam's six-year gap, a Supreme Court mandate on TET requirements issued just before the exam, and the need to minimize hardship to 38,558 candidates who appeared for the examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts