Mayuresh Pradip Dale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mayuresh Pradip Dale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petitions disposed of with directions: petitioners to submit undertakings before the Deputy Director of Education and appear before him on 06/01/2026; the Deputy Director to hear the petitioners, consider the Principal Seat order in the cases of similarly situated petitioners, and take an appropriate decision within four weeks thereafter; failure to adhere to the time stipulation to be treated as an aggravated form of contempt.

Issue for consideration

Whether the present petitioners, who claim to have been appointed pursuant to the consent terms, are entitled to the same relief of approval of appointment as granted in Writ Petition No. 3530/2018 (raised by counsel; not adjudicated by this Court in contempt jurisdiction). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Petitioners have submitted their undertaking before this Court and shall submit the same before the Deputy Director of Education.

Key takeaways

This Court cannot go into the merits in contempt jurisdiction.ratio¶3
In the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioners are directed to submit their undertaking before the Deputy Director of Education and appear before him on 06/01/2026.ratio¶3
The Deputy Director shall, after hearing the petitioners and taking into consideration the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in the cases of similarly situated petitioners, take appropriate decision in the cases of the petitioners within four weeks thereafter.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Coram: Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Vaishali Patil Jadhav, JJ. (per court), 18 December 2025 — Batch of contempt petitions (C.P. Nos. 654, 158 and 157 of 2024; 1077, 1078, 989 and 991 of 2025) arising out of writ petitions of 2023, filed by petitioners who, per counsel's submission, were appointed pursuant to consent terms and claim the same relief as granted in Writ Petition No. 3530/2018 (Principal Seat, R. D. Dhanuka and Abhay Ahuja, JJ.), wherein the State Government was directed by order dated 13/09/2021 to grant approval to appointments of petitioners who were parties to the consent terms. Held: merits cannot be gone into in contempt jurisdiction. Petitions disposed of by directing the petitioners to submit undertakings before the Deputy Director of Education and appear before him on 06/01/2026; the Deputy Director to hear the petitioners, consider the Principal Seat order concerning similarly situated petitioners, and take an appropriate decision within four weeks thereafter; failure to follow the time stipulation to be treated as an aggravated form of contempt.

2025:BHC-AUG:36202-DB

1 926-911-910-916.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

926 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 654 OF 2024 IN WP/14722/2023

MAYURESH PRADIP DALE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. Dhananjay A. Mane, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. R.Kale, AGP for Respondent/State

Ms. Akanksha Salgar, Advocate h/f Mr. Prakash S. Paranjape, Advocate for Respondent No.4

... WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 158 OF 2024 IN WP/14049/2023 WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2024 IN WP/13082/2023

... 910 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1077 OF 2025 IN WP/1400/2025

SHUBHANGI VASANT RAUT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. Dhananjay A. Mane, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State

911 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2025 IN WP/14722/2023

VAISHALI AMBADAS SARODE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. Dhananjay A. Mane, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondent/State

915 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 989 OF 2025 IN WP/14722/2023

NANDKUMAR LAXMAN RAHINJ AND OTHERS

VERSUS

SVH

2 926-911-910-916.odt

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. Dhananjay A. Mane, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent/State

916 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 991 OF 2025 IN WP/15639/2023

PRIYANKA LAXMAN GAIKWAD AND ANOTHER VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. Dhananjay A. Mane, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND

VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 18^th DECEMBER, 2025

PER COURT :

Petitioners have submitted their undertaking before this Court. Petitioners shall submit the same before the Deputy Director of Education.

Learned advocate for petitioners submits that Writ Petition No.3530/2018 and connected matters of similarly situated Assistant Lecturers who had approached to the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat for directions, was allowed by order dated 13/09/2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat [Coram : R. D. Dhanuka and Abhay Ahuja, J.J.] and it was directed to the State Government to grant approval to the appointment of petitioners therein who were parties to the consent terms. He, further submits that the petitioners herein were persons

SVH

3 926-911-910-916.odt

appointed pursuant to the consent terms and therefore, they are entitled for the same relief.

We cannot go into the merits in contempt jurisdiction. In the peculiar facts of the case, we direct the petitioners to submit undertaking before the Deputy Director of Education and appear before him on 06/01/2026. The Deputy Director shall after hearing the petitioners and by taking into consideration the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in the cases of similarly situated petitioners, take appropriate decision in the cases of petitioners within four weeks thereafter.

With these directions the contempt petitions are disposed of. Failure to follow the time stipulation mentioned above shall be treated as aggravated form of contempt.

(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

SVH