Disposed¶14

Santosh Eaknath Haralkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Feb 2026WP/157/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition (W.P. 157/2026, Aurangabad Bench) challenging permanent appointment of temporary employees; refusal of permission to amend petition; liberty to file afresh; Board decision unchallenged and supporting documents absent; no statute or precedent engaged; advocates: S. G. Jadhavar (petitioners), V. M. Kagne (AGP, State).

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh with all necessary documents and necessary pleadings. ¶14

Santosh Eaknath Haralkar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:4940-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2026

¶4

Santosh Eaknath Haralkar And Others VERSUS

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶6

Mr. S. G. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioners Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for respondent-State

¶7

CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 03^rd February, 2026

¶8

ORDER (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) :-

¶9

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and also perused reliefs claimed therein along with the documents annexed.

¶10

Impugned order which is placed on the Page No. 161 of the petition, makes reference to certain documents on the basis of which decision has been taken by the authorities to appoint the temporary employees as permanent. No such document has been placed on record and neither the decision of the Board has been challenged. Secondly, the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the employees which are listed at Serial No. 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned order were not the employees of the Board prior to their appointments. When we pointed out to the Advocate for petitioners that the impugned order itself

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

911-WP-157-2026.odt

¶13

reflects that all the appointed persons were previously working with the Board as temporary employees and on what basis he substantiate his submission. Learned Advocate for petitioners could not point out any document or any material to support his submissions. He then prays to grant permission to annex the documents and carry out necessary amendments. In our view, this permission will lead to substantial change in the nature of the entire petition and, therefore, we refuse to grant the permission to amend. Learned Advocate for petitioners therefore, prays to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh. Taking into consideration the interest of justice and the case of the petitioners, we grant leave to file the petition afresh by annexing all the necessary documents and with necessary pleadings.

¶14

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

¶15

(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

¶16

B. S. Joshi

¶17

2 of 2

¶18

911-WP-157-2026.odt

Santosh Eaknath Haralkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Eaknath Haralkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Dattatray Gadekar and Others vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Sanskruti Narayan Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Meena Sunil Shinde vs Sunil Pandurang Shinde and Anr.

Rakesh Dilip Mangarule and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sushil Prabhakar Jawale vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Desk Officer and Others

Ramchandra Navnath Satpute vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others