MAHA. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THR. SECRETARY, NAVI MUMBAI vs KIRAN D/O. DNYANESHWAR TAKSANDE AND OTHERS — WP/4136/2026
Case under The Maharshtra Administrative Tribunal Section 226. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM040161882026
Filing Number
WP/11004/2026
Filing Date
07-May-2026
Registration No
WP/4136/2026
Registration Date
13-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor , Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. Wakode
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor , Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. Wakode
Bench Type
Division
Judicial Branch
Civil
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MAHA. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THR. SECRETARY, NAVI MUMBAI
Adv. ABHIJIT DESHPANDE
Respondent(s)
-
1.KIRAN D/O. DNYANESHWAR TAKSANDE AND OTHERS
-
2.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT MUMBAI
-
3.THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS AND TREASURY, MUMBAI
Case History
-
19-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
19-Jun-2026
Fresh Admission (Civil Side Matters)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor , Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. Wakode
-
11-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor,hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. WakodeView PDF
Case Summary: In WP 4136/2026 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), the Maharashtra Public Service Commission challenged a decision involving respondent Kiran d/o Dnyaneshwar Taksande. On 11/06/2026, the court heard the petitioner's counsel and issued notice to respondents, returnable on 19/06/2026. All respondents waived service of notice. The case was adjourned for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Jun-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/4136/2026
Case Summary: In WP 4136/2026 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), the Maharashtra Public Service Commission challenged a decision involving respondent Kiran d/o Dnyaneshwar Taksande. On 11/06/2026, the court heard the petitioner's counsel and issued notice to respondents, returnable on 19/06/2026. All respondents waived service of notice. The case was adjourned for substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts