Jyoti Devrao Bharati vs State of Government of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jyoti Devrao Bharati vs State of Government of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.2 directed to consider the Petitioner's representations, including a fresh representation to be filed within one week, within four weeks of receipt thereof and to decide after hearing the Petitioner; liberty reserved to file a fresh Writ Petition if aggrieved by the fresh decision; rights and contentions kept open; Interim Applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24 May 2023 appointing Respondent No.3 on contractual basis as Legal Advisor remained live. +3 more

Court's answer

The prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24 May 2023 has become infructuous.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the Petitioner's representations, including a fresh representation (to be filed within one week), within four weeks from receipt of the fresh representation, and pass an appropriate decision after hearing the Petitioner.

Key takeaways

If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the fresh decision taken by Respondent No.2 on the representations, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the same.ratio¶30
The rights and contentions of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as the Interim Applications are kept open to be urged before Respondent No.2.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 825 of 2024 (Jyoti Devrao Bharati v. State of Government of Maharashtra et al.), decided 22 January 2026 by R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, JJ. The Petitioner, an employee in the Law Officer cadre, sought (i) quashing of the order dated 24 May 2023 appointing Respondent No.3 on contractual basis as Legal Advisor — a prayer found infructuous — and (ii) promotion as Chief Law Officer or Legal Advisor as the senior most eligible employee, complaining that Respondent No.2 (Corporation) had not considered her representations, including that dated 30 May 2023. Interim Applications (Nos. 4018 of 2025 and 1821 of 2024) sought a bar on extending Respondent No.3's contractual engagement, alleging violation of Government Resolutions dated 17 February 2016 and 10 June 2025 and citing Audit Department, Nagpur objections. Following Respondent No.2's undertaking to consider the representations, the Court disposed of the Petition: fresh representation to be filed within one week; Respondent No.2 to consider all representations within four weeks of receipt and decide after hearing the Petitioner; rights and contentions kept open; liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition if aggrieved; Interim Applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR

1 2-WP-825-2024 (OS).doc

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.01.22 18:46:06 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4018 OF 2025 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1821 OF 2024 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2024

Jyoti Devrao Bharati ...Applicant Versus

State of Government of Maharashtra ...Respondents

Ms. Seema Chopda for the Applicant/Petitioner.

Ms. Jaymala Ostwal, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar a/w Ms. Priyesha Patil and Ms. Sejal for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATED : 22ND JANUARY, 2026

P.C.:-

By this Writ Petition the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent – Corporation to quash and set aside the illegal and arbitrary order dated 24 May 2023 of appointing Respondent No.3 on contractual basis as (Legal Advisor) and direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Chief Law Officer or as Legal Advisor being senior most and eligible employee, in the cadre of Law Officer.

The prayer in so far as quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24 May 2023 has become infructuous.

1/3

Pallavi

2 2-WP-825-2024 (OS).doc

The Petitioner has filed several representations to the Respondent No.2. One such representation has been annexed to the Petition being representation dated 30 May 2023 requesting Respondent No.2 to cancel/revoke contractual employment of Respondent No.3 to the post of Legal Advisor and to appoint the Petitioner on the promotional post of Chief Law Officer. The grievance of the Petitioner is that until date the Respondents have not considered the representation of the Petitioner.

There are Interim Applications filed by the Petitioner seeking direction not to extend contractual engagement of Respondent No.3 which the Petitioner has alleged, is in violation of impugned Government Resolution dated 17 February 2016 and 10 June 2025 and also in regard to the objection raised by Audit Department, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

The Writ Petition as it stands, does not challenge the recent contractual engagement of Respondent No.3. In view of the representations not having been considered by the Respondents, Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 states that Respondent No.2 will consider the representations of the Petitioners in time-bound manner and pass appropriate decision, after hearing the Petitioner. This statement is accepted.

In view of the above statement, the Petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation within a period of one week from today apart from the representations already filed with Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2

2/3

Pallavi

3 2-WP-825-2024 (OS).doc

is directed to consider such representation of the Petitioner including the fresh representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation of the Petitioner.

The rights and contentions of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as Interim Application are kept open to be urged before the Respondent No.2.

Upon a fresh decision being taken by Respondent No.2 on the representations including the fresh representation of the Petitioner which shall be filed within a period of one week from today, in the event the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision so taken, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the same.

The present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Interim Applications filed in the present Writ Petition do not survive and are also disposed of.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

3/3

Pallavi