Manmohan Ankush Galande vs the All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Mr. Marutrao Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Mr. Ashwin Kapadnis a/w Balkrushna Patil for Respondent No.1 - EICTE Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 23^rd MARCH, 2026.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

1. The petitioner by the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought following reliefs :-

¶14

“A. To direct the respondent No.8 - College to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in service and allow the petitioner to join duty immediately and sign the muster roll, by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as the case may be;

¶15

B. To direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as a confirmed faculty member of the department with continuity of service by regularising the services of the petitioner and pay

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

Uday S. Jagtap

¶18

25-12402-2025-CWP=.doc

¶19

his salary according to the recommendations made by the 7th Central Pay Commission and also pay the arrears of difference in salary actually paid to him and the salary to which the petitioner was entitled along with interest @ 12% p.a. by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as the case may be;

¶20

C. To direct the respondent No.-9 GRC to decide the grievance of the petitioner dated 26.07.2025 as early as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of order of this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

D. To grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause A, B, C and D and restraining the respondents from making appointments on the post of Lecturer/incharge 'HOD - E and TL' or Lecturer held by the petitioner, by fresh advertisement, pending hearing and final disposal of this application;

¶22

E. To grant any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to.”

¶23

2. However, both the learned counsel state that during the pendency

¶24

of this Writ Petition, on 18^th February 2026 the Divisional Appellate Grievance Redressal Committee (DAGRC) has passed following directions:-

¶25

"आदेश

¶26

 सं्थेनेरी. मनमोहनअंकुशगलांडे, अि�लकाा�यांनाहेआदेशरात होााचाा्काळसं्थेा्यां्या�दावरु जूकुनघे्याायावेव्यांनासं्थेा ये्या�ासूनकोण्याहीरकारचीबंदीअथवाअडथळेिनमा�णकु नये.

¶27

 अि�लकाा�री. मनमोहनअंकुशगलांडे, यां्यावेानाबाबाअि+ल भाराीयांरिशषण�िरषद, नवीिदलीयांचे+ाजगीिवनाअनुदािनासं्थांमधील िशषकांनावेानआयोगलागूकरणेसंदभा�ावेळोवेळीिनग�िमाझाले्या नोटीि7केशनमधीलाराुदीनुसारसं्था्ारावरउिचाकाय�वाहीकरावी.

¶28

2 of 3

¶29

Uday S. Jagtap

¶30

25-12402-2025-CWP=.doc

¶31

 अि�लकाा�री. मनमोहनअंकुशगलांडे, यांचेकोिवड-१९कालावधीा सं्थेकडेथकीाअसलेलेवेानअि�लकाा�यांना् विराअदाकरणेबाबा सं्था्ारावरकाय�वाहीकर्याायावी.

¶32

सं्थेनेयाआदेशाचीअमंलबजावणीआदेशरातझा्या�ासून१ मिह्या्याआा�ूण�करावी.”

¶33

3. Thus, the relief sought in the Writ Petition has been worked out. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 states that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 will take appropriate steps to challenge the said order in accordance with law.

¶34

4. In view of the above, nothing survives in the petition. All contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to execute the order dated 18^th February 2026 passed by the DAGRC in case, the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 fails to challenge the said order within a reasonable time or fails to get any interim order.

¶35

5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ]

¶37

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶38

3 of 3

¶39

Uday S. Jagtap

Manmohan Ankush Galande v. the All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Ankush Galande v. the All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prabha Heera Pratishthan Thr. Chief Functionary/Chief Secretary Dimple Rajkumar Ghadage vs Government of India Thr. Ministry of Home Affairs, Thr. Under Secretary, Foreigners Division

Prathmesh Dhanaji Patil vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suvarna Vishwas Kumbhar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary School Education and Sports Department and Ors.

Vijay Tukaram Pokale and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharati Shivaji Chougule vs State of Maharashtra through D E and Ors.

Vaishali D/O Kishor Dukare vs the State of Maharashtra Thro.Its Sec Education Dept and Ors.