Amolkumar Santram Gore vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Amolkumar Santram Gore vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders dated 06.11.2025 and 08.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in the respective petitions set aside; apology of respondent No.2 accepted with a cautionary direction; respondent No.2 directed to call the Management's proposals afresh within one week and decide them within four weeks thereafter, in view of the order dated 18.06.2025 in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2024.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned decisions dated 08.10.2025 and 06.11.2025 of respondent No.2 - passed on the bona fide belief that judgments delivered by courts are always prospective in nature and never retrospective - were legally sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 labours under a mistaken belief that the decisions of this Court are always prospective in nature and not retrospective; in fact it depends upon the facts of the case, and if the Court explains the existing law, the decision would have retrospective effect.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 ought to have considered, while taking decisions, whether the mandatory things required as per the decision of this Court, Bench at Nagpur, were present in the present case; failing which her decisions proceeded on a wrong assumption of law.

Key takeaways

The impugned decisions dated 06.11.2025 and 08.10.2025 in the respective petitions are totally on a wrong assumption of law and therefore deserve to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶28
The apology tendered by respondent No.2 is accepted, with a direction to her to be careful henceforth in discharging her duty, especially when specific directions are given by this Court.ratio¶29
Respondent No.2 shall call the proposals submitted by the Management once again within a period of one week and decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter, in view of the order dated 18.06.2025 in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2024.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Division Bench of Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ., 18 February 2026, in connected Writ Petition Nos. 1501, 1502 and 1599 of 2026 (Amolkumar Santram Gore; Usha Baliram Masal; Farooq Gafoor Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra and others) - partly allowed. The education authority (respondent No.2) had passed orders dated 08.10.2025 and 06.11.2025 in the respective petitions on the stated belief that judgments delivered by courts are always prospective and never retrospective. The Court held that this belief is mistaken: whether a decision operates prospectively depends upon the facts of the case, and where the Court explains the existing law, the decision has retrospective effect. The mandatory requirements laid down by the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.7706 of 2022 (dated 21.12.2023) - whose decision underlay the order dated 18.06.2025 in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2024 directing approval of promotion as Assistant Teacher from 01.12.2021 with pay-scale salary - were present in the case, and respondent No.2 ought to have verified them. The impugned decisions, being totally on a wrong assumption of law, were set aside. Respondent No.2's apology was accepted with a direction to be careful in future, particularly when specific Court directions exist; she was directed to call the Management's proposals afresh within one week and decide them within four weeks thereafter in view of the order in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2024.

1027-wp-1501-2026.odt

2026:BHC-AUG:7662-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

1027 WRIT PETITION NO.1501 OF 2026

Amolkumar Santram Gore VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.

AND

1028 WRIT PETITION NO.1502 OF 2026

Usha Baliram Masal

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.

AND WRIT PETITION NO.1599 OF 2026

Farooq Gafoor Shaikh VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and others

Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 18 FEBRUARY 2026

ORDER :

. In view of our order dated 10.02.2026 passed in Writ Petition Nos.1501 of 2026 and 1502 of 2026, respondent No.2 is present before this Court. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed. She submits that already under the order passed in Writ Petition No.6109 of 2022 decided on

[1]

1027-wp-1501-2026.odt

27.07.2022, her office has already approved the services of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on 02.11.2022. Thereafter, this Court in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2024 decided on 18.06.2025 had directed respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision for grant of approval to the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher from 01.12.2021 instead of Shikshan Sevak and pay the salary as per the relevant pay scale, as per the decision of this Court, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.7706 of 2022 dated 21.12.2023. Now, again respondent No.2, with her own interpretation, has tried to explain in paragraph No.13 of her affidavit that, under the bona fide belief that the judgments delivered by the court of law are always prospective in nature and not retrospective, she passed the impugned order. We have made inquiry as to whether respondent No.2 is a law graduate and she answers it in negative. We want to make it clear that she is under mistaken fact that the decisions of this Court are always prospective in nature and not retrospective. In fact, it depends upon the facts of the case and if the law is explained, then it would have the retrospective effect. She ought to have gone through the decision of this Court Bench and in fact in order dated 18.06.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2024 had taken note of the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was praying for pay protection in light of decision of the Nagpur Bench. Only to that extent, while taking

[2]

1027-wp-1501-2026.odt

decisions, respondent No.2 ought to have taken that the mandatory things which were required as per the decision of this Court Bench at Nagpur are there in the present case or not, but now the impugned decisions dated 06.11.2025 and 08.10.2025 in respective petitions are totally on the wrong assumption of law and, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Respondent No.2 has tendered the apology. We accept the same with direction to respondent No.2 to be careful henceforth in discharging her duty, especially when specific directions are given by this Court.

The writ petitions are partly allowed.

The impugned orders dated 06.11.2025 and 08.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in respective petitions, are hereby set aside.

Respondent No.2 should call the proposals submitted by the Management once again within a period of one week and decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter, in view of the order passed by this Court, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.4086 of 2024 on 18.06.2025.

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[3]