Partly allowed¶18

Anusaya D/O Tryambak Gondalwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Sept 2025WP/10150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra education department; writ petition seeking timely disposal of statutory appeal; Deputy Director of Education directed to decide appeal by 31.10.2025; appeal filed 16.04.2025 against Education Officer's order dated 08.01.2025; six-month appellate timeline under Clause 4(15) of Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024; mandamus-type direction for adherence to Government Resolution deadline; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; amendment correcting Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad Latur to Nanded; notice dispensed for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 - Deputy Director of Education to decide the petitioner's pending appeal on or before 31.10.2025; pending applications disposed of. ¶18

Anusaya D/O Tryambak Gondalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.2 - Deputy Director of Education to decide the petitioner's pending appeal on or before 31.10.2025; pending applications disposed of.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 - Deputy Director of Education should be directed to decide, within a stipulated period of time, the petitioner's appeal filed on 16.04.2025 challenging the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3 - Education Officer.

¶13

Court's answer

Clause 4(15) of the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024 stipulates that the appellate authority/officer shall decide such an appeal within six months after giving proper hearing to all the concerned parties.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2, before whom the petitioner's appeal is pending, is expected to abide by the timeline specified in the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024.

¶17

Key takeaways

The writ petition is partly allowed and respondent No.2 - Deputy Director of Education is directed to decide the petitioner's pending appeal on or before 31.10.2025.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anusaya D/o Tryambak Gondalwad v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.10150 of 2025 (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench, 09.09.2025; Per Court: Manish Pitale & Y. G. Khobragade, JJ.). The petitioner sought a direction to respondent No.2, Deputy Director of Education, to decide her appeal filed on 16.04.2025 against the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3, Education Officer, within a stipulated period. The court noted there was no dispute that the appeal was filed as per Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024, whose Clause 4(15) requires the appellate authority/officer to decide such an appeal within six months after giving proper hearing to all concerned parties; held respondent No.2 was expected to abide by that timeline; partly allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal on or before 31.10.2025. Notice on respondent Nos.4 and 5 was dispensed with; leave to amend was granted correcting respondent No.3's description from Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Latur to Zilla Parishad, Nanded; pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:23978-DB

¶2

1 944.WP.10150.25.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10150 OF 2025

¶5

ANUSAYA D/O TRYAMBAK GONDALWAD VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Rodge Krishna Pratap AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. Neha B. Kamble Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Santosh Baburao Pulkundwar

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 09.09.2025

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

At the out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶12

due to inadvertence, respondent No.3 has been shown as Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Latur, while the correct representation ought to be the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded. In the interest of justice leave to amend is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶13

By this petition the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 – Deputy Director of Education to decide appeal filed on 16.04.2025 by the petitioner challenging order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 – Education Officer, within a stipulated period of time.

¶14

2 944.WP.10150.25.odt

¶15

The learned AGP appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Pulkundwar, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3. Considering the direction that we intend to issue in the present writ petition, service of notice upon respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with.

¶16

There is no dispute about the fact that the pending appeal has been filed by the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024. It is relevant to note here that Clause 4(15) of the said Government Resolution stipulates that the appellate authority/officer shall decide such an appeal within six (6) months after giving proper hearing to all the concerned parties.

¶17

The respondent No.2 before whom the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending, is expected to abide by the aforesaid timeline specified in the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024.

¶18

In view of the above, we partly allow this writ petition and direct the respondent No.2 - Deputy Director of Education to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner on or before 31.10.2025.

¶19

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶20

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶21

habeeb/

Anusaya D/O Tryambak Gondalwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusaya D/O Tryambak Gondalwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abasaheb Alias Digambar Shivram Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahas Pandharinath Adode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ratnakar Raghuji Khandale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Ms Niki Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Person Vimal Mankichan Chordiya Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Tohers

Shaikh Rajjak Shahamad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Manjusha D/O Sidram Painapalle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others