Siddhant Vinayak Khairmode vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Dy Secretary and Anr.

¶1

901-WP-10143-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10143 OF 2024

¶4

Siddhant Vinayak Khairmode … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rajesh M Kolge a/w Mr. Satish J. Yesare for the Petitioner. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Kedar Lad a/w Adv. Indrayani Patil for the Respondent No. 2.

¶8

——————

¶9

Coram : R.G. AVACHAT &

¶10

AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

¶11

Date : 22^nd January 2026.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1. Heard.

¶14

2. The Respondent No. 2 – Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur issued Advertisement No.01/2023 (at page 17 of the petition) for filling up posts on the establishment of Respondent No.2. The recruitment process was conducted by the District Selection Committee.

¶15

3. The Petitioner applied for the post of Extension Officer (Statistics), Class-III under the NT(B) category. Upon completion of the recruitment process, the name of the Petitioner – Siddhant Vinayak Khairmode appeared

¶16

1 of 5

¶17

Shubham

¶18

901-WP-10143-2024.doc

¶19

at Serial No.1 in the select list. Another candidate, namely Pratik Pandit Rawal, secured equal marks, i.e. 164. Relying upon Clause 11.1 of Advertisement No.01/2023, the Petitioner, being senior in age, was given preference. However, despite his selection, no appointment order was issued to the Petitioner for a considerable period. The Petitioner was therefore constrained to approach this Court. By order dated 29^th January 2025, this Court directed that until further orders, the post in question shall not be filled up.

¶20

4. It appears that the appointment order was not issued to the Petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the requisite educational qualification.

¶21

5. According to the Respondents, B.E. (Mechanical) was neither the requisite qualification nor equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The said decision was taken on the basis of guidance given by Respondent No.1.

¶22

6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Abhijeet s/o Dyaneshwar Kalgunde vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No.7915 of 2024, decided on 11^th November 2025. It was submitted that the issue is no longer res integra, and that the said judgment has attained finality.

¶23

7. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that the requisite qualification was graduation from any stream with Statistics/Mathematics as

¶24

2 of 5

¶25

Shubham

¶26

901-WP-10143-2024.doc

¶27

one of the subjects. According to him, the decision was taken on the basis of the opinion given by the State Government to Respondent No.2. He therefore urged for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶28

8. We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the documents on record, and examined the authorities cited.

¶29

9. The qualification prescribed for the post of Extension Officer (Statistics), Class-III was as under:

¶30

|18 foLrkj vf/kdkjh ¼lkaf[;dh½ lafof/kekU; fo|kfiBkph foKku] d`f”k] okf.kT; fdaok| |---| |okM~%e; ‘kk[ksph vFkZ’kkL= fdaok xf.kr vFkok lkaf[;dh| |fo”k;klg izFke vxj fnOrh; oxkZrhy inoh /kkj.k djhr| |vlrhy fdaok T;akuk uequk losZ{k.k dj.;kpk vuqHko| |vlsy] fdaok inoh o vuqHko nksUgh vlrhy vls mesnokj| |ijarq] v’kk fo”k;kaiSdh ,dk fo”k;kph LukrdksRrj inoh| |/kkj.k dj.kk&;k mesnokjkauk vf/kd ilarh ns.;kr ;sbZy-|

¶31

10. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner holds a degree of B.E. (Mechanical). For three to four semesters out of the eight-semester course, the Petitioner had Statistics as one of the subjects. In Abhijeet s/o Dyaneshwar Kalgunde (supra), this Court observed that a degree in Engineering is a degree in applied science. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶32

“10. It is reiterated that, educational qualification for the post of Extension Officer (Statistical) was-degree in Science or Agriculture or Commerce or Arts stream with subjects - Economics or Mathematics or Statistical. Preference to a postgraduate in any of those streams was to be given. A short question, therefore, falls for consideration in this Writ Petition

¶33

3 of 5

¶34

Shubham

¶35

901-WP-10143-2024.doc

¶36

is as to whether the petitioner's degree in Engineering is a degree in Science stream. Admittedly, the petitioner had Engineering Mathematics as one of the subjects for his Engineering academics. It needs no mention that, post passing of S.S.C. examination, candidates prefer either Science, Commerce or Arts stream. One of those three streams is preferred, then on passing of H.S.C. examination, a candidate from Science stream may go for either Medical or Engineering Science. No candidate who did H.S.C. either from Commerce or Arts stream is permitted to switch over to Science stream. It is, however, permissible for a candidate clearing H.S.C. from Science stream to switch over either to Commerce or Arts stream for further studies of First Year B.Com. and onwards or B.A. After passing of H.S.C. examination in Science stream, who were better placed in securing marks prefer to go for either M.B.B.S or Engineering. Needless to mention, Bachelor of Engineering is an applied Science. A Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) is considered a Science related degree because, it applies Scientific Mathematical principles to solve practical problems, making it a type of applied science. While a pure science degree (like a Bachelor of Science or B.Sc.) focuses more on the theoretical and fundamental; principles of science, an engineering degree emphasizes hands on application and technology. Both are foundational in their own way, but engineering is about using science for practical purpose. As per the advertisement, even a degree in Arts stream I.e. B.A. with Mathematics or Statistics is a requisite qualification, we fail to understand why not a degree in Engineering (B.E. Mechanical) with Mathematics or Statistics is one of the subjects. In our view, B.E. is necessarily a graduation in Science stream. The petitioner's educational qualification gets covered by the clause as to requisite qualification in the advertisement.”

¶37

11. Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 fairly concedes that the said judgment has attained finality.

¶38

4 of 5

¶39

Shubham

¶40

901-WP-10143-2024.doc

¶41

12. In view of the above, we hold that the Petitioner possesses the requisite qualification to hold the post for which he has been selected. The Respondent No. 2 was therefore not justified in withholding issuance of the appointment order.

¶42

13. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus:

¶43

“(b) by suitable order/writ/direction of this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to issue the appointment order to the petitioner for the post of extension officer (Statistics) Class -III through the NT(B) category and petition be allowed accordingly;”

¶44

[ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ] [ R.G. AVACHAT, J. ]

¶45

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶46

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2026.01.27 18:41:05 +0530

¶47

5 of 5

¶48

Shubham

Siddhant Vinayak Khairmode v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Dy Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhant Vinayak Khairmode v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Dy Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivaji Nanaso Ingole (Father of Detenu) vs the District Magistrate and Others

Aditya Shailendra Mane vs the State of Maharashtra, Home Dept, ( Special) Thr. Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Hanmant Baburao Mane Since Deceased Thor. His Legal Heirs and Representatives vs the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Raya Janu Mahar Since Dec Thr Lrs Sadashiv Shankar Kamble vs the District Collector and Ors.

Somnath Baburao Dhekhale vs State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Social Justice Departmentand Ors.

Dilip Nivrutti Kolekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary Higher and Technical Edu. and Ors.