Disposed

Surekha Sudhakar Sadavarte v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2026WP/1529/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority dispute between Assistant Teachers over promotion to Headmaster was referred to the grievance redressal committee constituted under the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024, following the court's earlier decision in Nitin Jaysing Salunkhe. Petition disposed with directions and contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach the grievance committee within four weeks; committee to decide within sixteen weeks after notice to all parties.

Surekha Sudhakar Sadavarte vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1-SR903.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1529 OF 2024

¶4

Surekha Sudhakar Sadavarte ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶5

Mr.R.S.Rane, Advocate i/b. Mr.Rahul B. Vijaymane, Advocate for petitioner

¶6

Ms.T.J.Kapre, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3

¶7

Mr.Shraddha Nakoti, Advocate i/b. .Mr.Rupesh Bobade, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5

¶8

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2026

¶9

ORDER :-

¶10

This is a dispute of seniority amongst the Assistant

¶11

Teachers to claim promotion to the post of Headmaster. The controversy is between the petitioner and respondent no.7.

¶12

This Court in Writ Petition No.12447 of 2025 (Nitin

¶13

Jaysing Salunkhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra) decided on

¶14

03.12.2025 , referring to the Government Resolution dated 27.03.2024

¶15

¶16

1-SR903

¶17

has observed that such controversy needs to be relegated to the dispute redressal committee formed under the said Government Resolution and the order shall be binding on the parties. Paragraphs 12 to 17 of the judgment dated 27.03.2024 in Nitin Jaysing Salunkhe (supra) are as under:-

¶18

12 . It is certainly sagacious that such grievances and the disputed questions of facts as also the factual controversies are dealt with initially by expert authorities which are wholly conversant with the facts, applicability of prevailing provisions/ government policies and the terminology used in various provisions concerning the subject-matter of grievances. From the recitals of Government Resolution dated 27th March 2024, it is clear that Committees formed therein comprise of such experts who are oiciating positions to prevail over the subjectmatter grievances.

¶19

13 . It is pertinent to note that as per Clause 4(1) of the Government Resolution dated 27^th March 2024, although it enables complaints / appeals in respect of the cause of action arisen after 1st January 2024, yet it mandates the “Committees” to adjudicate the issues arisen during the prior period, if directed by this court.

¶20

14 . As such, we have no manner of doubt in our minds that grievance redressal mechanism contained in the Government Resolution dated 27th March 2024 is an adequate remedy to redress Petitioners’ grievance raised in the present Writ Petition. Petitioner’s grievance recorded by us in the subject-matter column above can be suitably and appropriately adjudicated by the concerned Committee in view of issues/subject-

¶21

¶22

1-SR903

¶23

matters enlisted in Clause (2) of the Government Resolution dated 27th March 2024.

¶24

What we expect and observe is that let such pioneering grievance redressal mechanism framed for the Private School Managements and employees therein, be efectively and scrupulously operated by the Members of respective Committees. Needless to mention, the respective committees shall always take into consideration various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on the issues that may come before those Committees. Failure to follow those judicial pronouncements, not referring to those, shall be taken seriously and would be held as contemptuous. The Committees shall meticulously go through documents tendered by parties, the disputed questions of facts and shall take appropriate decisions in the light of provisions particularly in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.

¶25

The respective Committees must in their orders refer to the legal positions on the subjectmatter issues and pass appropriate order rendering categorical inding as to how the legal position applies / covers the case in hand.

¶26

The proceedings before the respective committees shall be taken to its logical end meaningfully and not merely remain pending. The time-frame shall be observed scrupulously by the respective Committees. No committee shall refuse to entertain the complaint/ grievance for want of any order under challenge, if the complaint/ grievance is raised due to inaction on the part of any authority to adjudicate proposal/claim of the concerned school management or its employee.

¶27

4 1-SR903

¶28

In view of the above, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned grievance committee within four weeks from today. The concerned grievance committee shall issue notices to all the concerned parties and then proceed on the basis of the record. The grievance committee shall decide the dispute within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receiving such grievance. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶29

All contentions are kept open.

¶30

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

¶31

KBP

Surekha Sudhakar Sadavarte v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Sudhakar Sadavarte v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav Shivram Gawas and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sec. School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Sandeep Balavant Padalkar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Finance Dept. and Ors.

Gurukrupa Mangal Karyalaya Thr. Proprietor Mahadev Dnyandeo Mahadik and Ors. vs Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. Thr. Authorised Person

Shripad Gopal Vyas and Anr. vs Dattatray Deo. Math. Karveer Kolhapur and Ors.

Kapil Vinodpal Singh Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Bandu Koli vs the Assistant General Manager (S and E) Pgmt BSNL and Ors.