RAVINDRA S/O. DHANLAL PARDHI AND OTHERS vs STATE OF MAHA., THR. SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS. — WP/4093/2024

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM040177992024

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/12571/2024

Filing Date

02-07-2024

Registration No

WP/4093/2024

Registration Date

09-07-2024

Judge

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. S. JAWALKAR , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Coram

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. S. JAWALKAR , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

15th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226
Mah. Pvt. School (C of S) Regulation Act
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules (Maharashtra)

Petitioner(s)

RAVINDRA S/O. DHANLAL PARDHI AND OTHERS

Adv. SANKET A. WALDE,SWAPNIL ANIL WALDE,SWAPNIL ANIL WALDE, ,SHREY RAVI DAMBHARE,TOSHITA SURESH SAKHARE,SWAPNIL ANIL WALDE

JIYALAL S/O DEVILAL AMBULE

LAXMAN S/O DHARMRAJ CHAVHAN

GHANSHYAM S/O JHOLU THAKARE

CHUNNILAL S/O BHAUJI AMBULE

GALIB GULAM S/O AHMAD SHEIKH

RAM S/O DHARMRAJ CHAVHAN

VACHHALA W/O SUNIL BAWANKAR

NETRAM S/O CHILBANSAV BIJEWAR

MANDA W/O BABULAL RANGARI

DYANESHWAR S/O SURAJLAL PATLE

UMASHANKAR S/O PREMLAL PARDHI

SHRUTI S/O SHAILENDRANATH CHATARJEE

GULABCHAND S/O TULASHIRAM RAHANGDALE

SURESHKUMAR S/O DADURAM RAHANGDALE

NILKANTH S/O BHAIYALAL BISEN

RAMBHAU S/O HARILAL KATRE

EKNATH S/O FULICHAND DESHMUKH

VIJAYSINGH S/O GAJENDRASINGH RATHOD

ANIRUDH S/O SHRAVAN MESHRAM

Respondent(s)

STATE OF MAHA., THR. SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS.

Adv. ,MEGHNA MUNSHI,(FOR INTERVENOR/APPLICANT),(FOR R 4 AND

,MEGHNA MUNSHI,VAISHALI KHADEKAR, NEETA JOG(FOR R6 TO 21/ INTERVENOR) 1123

THE DIRECTORATE OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, MAHARASHTRA, THR. DIRECTOR EDUCATION (PRIMARY)

THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DEVELOPMENT BRANCH NAGPUR

ZILL PARISHAD, GONDIA, THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO), GONDIA

EDUCATION OFFICER (PRIMARY), ZILLA PARISHAD, GONDIA

GHANSHYAM S/O JEEVANRAM KAPGATE

OMKAR S/O SEWAKRAM BISEN

PRABHAKAR S/O MUKUNDRAO MESHRAM

KARUNA W/O RAJAN WASNIK

DINESH S/O AMRUT KAPGATE

NAJUK S/O SHANKAR LANJE

GHANSHYAM BABULAL KAWALE

ANUPKUMAR RAMCHANDRA NAGPURE

NANANBAI RAMCHANDRA BISEN

NISHA EKNATH YELANE

URKUDA PAGAJI BISEN

CHUMANLAL KEWALLAL PARIHAR

MAYURDHWAJ N. KURJEKAR

SOHANLAL TIKARAM PATLE

SMITA ANILKUMAR PATLE

RAMESHKUMAR SOUVIDRARAO CHAVHAN

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. S. JAWALKAR , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

10-07-2024

FRESH ADMISSION (CIVIL SIDE MATTERS)

15-04-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS

12-03-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS

26-02-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS

04-02-2026

FOR ADMISSION-SERVICE MATTERS

Orders

15-04-2026
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. S. JAWALKAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

The High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted petitioners liberty to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner within two weeks, as Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services Rules, 1964 provides the appropriate remedy for challenging seniority list disputes. The Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to consider petitioners' contentions regarding non-compliance with Government Resolutions while deciding the appeal, and to overlook any delay caused by the pending litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted petitioners liberty to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner within two weeks, as Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services Rules, 1964 provides the appropriate remedy for challenging seniority list disputes. The Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to consider petitioners' contentions regarding non-compliance with Government Resolutions while deciding the appeal, and to overlook any delay caused by the pending litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case