SUJATA RAJENDRA GAWALE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS — WP/4870/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030004472026
Filing Number
WP/322/2026
Filing Date
05-Jan-2026
Registration No
WP/4870/2026
Registration Date
30-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar
Coram
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar
Bench Type
Division
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
04-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUJATA RAJENDRA GAWALE
Adv. Bachate Pralhad D.
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
-
2.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SECONDARY
-
3.THE EDUCATION OFFICER SECONDARY
-
4.KRANTIJYOTI SAVITRIBAI PHULE SHIKSHAN PRASARAK SANSTHA VIDYANAGARI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
-
5.SMT DHANABAI KAUTIK KHALANE KANYA HIGH SCHOOL THROUGH ITS HEADMASTER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-May-2026
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. KadethankarView PDF
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, to implement a Grievance Committee decision dated 26.05.2025 within four weeks, after the officer failed to comply within the mandated 15-day period. The court warned of contempt proceedings and heavy costs for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Petitions For Admission - Fresh CIVIL Side Matters
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar
-
05-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/4870/2026
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, to implement a Grievance Committee decision dated 26.05.2025 within four weeks, after the officer failed to comply within the mandated 15-day period. The court warned of contempt proceedings and heavy costs for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts