Subhash Bhagwan Gaikwad and Anr. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Subhash Bhagwan Gaikwad and Anr. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw granted; all six writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn, with an express clarification that they will not be adjudicated on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should adjudicate the present petitioners' direct Article 226 challenge to the impugned Notification when similarly situated candidates had already sought the same relief before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, whose order had been passed, and a petition against that Tribunal order was pending before a coordinate Bench of this Court.

Court's answer

Because the matter had already been considered in detail by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and its order had already been passed, the Court did not adjudicate the issue of the present petitioners, who had directly approached this Court under Article 226.

Ratio / Principle

Permission to withdraw the petitions was granted, and all the writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly made it clear that the petitions will not be adjudicated on merits.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad - coram Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; order dated 09 April 2026 disposing of six connected writ petitions (Nos. 3591, 3634, 3640, 3647, 3655 and 3718 of 2026) in which candidate-petitioners (Manikumari Apparao Battula; Abhilasha Digambar Pachpor & others; Santosh Sheshrao Kasbe; Subhash Bhagwan Gaikwad & anr.; Sachin Balasaheb Poul alias Paul; Mangesh Narayanrao Waghmare) had directly approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against 'the impugned Notification', with the State and the respondent MPSC on the other side. Learned AGPs informed the Court that similarly situated candidates seeking the same relief had already challenged the impugned Notification itself before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, whose original applications stood rejected after detailed hearing, and that a petition challenging the Tribunal's order was already before a coordinate Bench of this Court with hearing fixed for the following day. As the matter had already been considered in detail by the Tribunal and its order passed, the Court did not adjudicate the present petitioners' issue, granted permission to withdraw, and all the writ petitions stood dismissed as withdrawn, with an express clarification that they would not be adjudicated on merits. No cases cited; no monetary quantum involved.

2026:BHC-AUG:15338-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

970 WRIT PETITION NO. 3591 OF 2026

MANIKUMARI APPARAO BATTULA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. V.B. Dhage, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for State

971 WRIT PETITION NO. 3634 OF 2026

ABHILASHA DIGAMBAR PACHPOR AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for petitioners

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for State

972 WRIT PETITION NO. 3640 OF 2026

SANTOSH SHESHRAO KASBE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. S.R. Kedar, Advocate for petitioner

2

970_WP_3591_2026+5

Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for State

973 WRIT PETITION NO. 3647 OF 2026

SUBHASH BHAGWAN GAIKWAD AND ANR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS

Mr. S.R. Kedar, Advocate for petitioners

Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for State

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.3

974 WRIT PETITION NO. 3655 OF 2026

SACHIN BALASAHEB POUL ALIES PAUL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY GENERAL

ADMINSTRATION DEPT. AN ORS

Mr. D.M. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for State

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.3

WRIT PETITION NO.3718 OF 2026

3

970_WP_3591_2026+5

MANGESH NARAYANRAO WAGHMARE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. P.S. Anerao, Advocate h/f Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for State

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.3

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 09^th APRIL, 2026

ORDER :

. Heard learned Advocates for respective petitioners. These

petitions had come up before us yesterday and after hearing the petitioners for some time we thought it fit that the opportunity should be given to the State as well as to the respondent – MPSC to represent themselves. Accordingly, the matters were placed today. Learned AGPs appearing for State in respective matters at the outset informed that similarly situated candidates for same relief had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by way of raising challenge to the impugned Notification itself and after hearing in detail the original application filed by the said candidates has been rejected. They further submit that by way of raising challenge to the

4

970_WP_3591_2026+5

order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal a petition has already been filed in this Court and was mentioned before the coordinate Bench, who has placed the hearing of the said petition tomorrow.

2 Learned Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners in all the petitions therefore seek liberty to withdraw the petitions.

3 As the matter has already been considered in detail by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the order has already been passed, we do not proceed to adjudicate the issue of the present petitioners, who had directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The permission to withdraw the petitions is therefore granted. All the writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn.

4 We make it clear that the petitions will not be adjudicated on

merits.

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

agd