Disposed¶15

Zaid Toman Abdul Rahman v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary School Education Dept.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2026WP/4452/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant teacher; approval of appointment; non-granted post; Management proposal dated 02.02.2026; reminder dated 13.04.2026; premature writ petition filed 14.04.2026; reasonable time for public authority to decide; direction to respondent no.2 to decide representation by 01.07.2026; costs considered but not imposed; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No. 4452 of 2026; decided 27.04.2026; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no.2 directed to decide the petitioner's representation (proposal for approval of his appointment) on or before 01.07.2026; prayer clause (B) for grant of approval itself not decided by this Court. ¶15

Zaid Toman Abdul Rahman vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary School Education Dept. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.2 should be directed to decide the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment within a stipulated period (prayer clause (C)), which counsel pressed instead of prayer clause (B).

¶11

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's representation (proposal for approval of appointment) on or before 01.07.2026.

¶15

Key takeaways

Reasonable time must be given to a public authority/Officer to take a decision; the petition, filed barely two months after submission of the proposal, was premature.obiter¶14
The Court considered imposing costs on the petitioner for the premature filing but refrained, taking into consideration that he is an Assistant Teacher.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 4452 of 2026 — High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.), decided 27 April 2026. An Assistant Teacher, whose appointment was on a non-granted post, sought directions to respondent no.2 to grant approval to his appointment (prayer clause (B)) and to decide the proposal within a stipulated period (prayer clause (C)); counsel pressed prayer clause (C). The Management had submitted the proposal on 02.02.2026 and sent a reminder on 13.04.2026; the petition was filed on 14.04.2026, barely two months after the proposal. Observing that reasonable time must be given to a public authority to take a decision, and noting that costs could have been imposed for the premature filing but were withheld as the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher, the Bench disposed of the petition by directing respondent no.2 to decide the representation on or before 01.07.2026. No statute or precedent was cited; no impugned order was under challenge.

¶1

4-sr19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4452 OF 2026

¶4

Zaid Toman Abdul Rahman VERSUS

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary School Education Dept.

¶6

Mr.B.P.Ganare, Advocate h/f. Mr.I.D.Maniyar, Advocate for petitioner Ms.N.B.Kamble, AGP for respondent no.1

¶7

Mr.S.R.Dheple, Advocate h/f. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶8

CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : APRIL 27, 2026

¶9

ORDER :-

¶10

Heard Mr.Ganare, learned counsel h/f. Mr.Maniyar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Though prayer clause (B) is in respect of giving directions to respondent no.2 to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the prayer clause (C) is to direct respondent no.2 to decide the proposal within stipulated period. Now, learned counsel for the is pressing the prayer clause (C).

¶12

Mr.Dheple, learned counsel h/f. Mr.Pulkundwar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 makes a statement that the proposal would be decided as early as possible.

¶13

2 4-sr19

¶14

Here, it is to be noted that the proposal was submitted by the Management on 02.02.2026 and the petitioner has filed this petition on 14.04.2026, i.e. hardly after two months’ period from the date of proposal. Taking into consideration the workload, the petition ought to have been filed after waiting for a considerable period or reasonable time. When it comes to a public authority, then reasonable time will have to be given to such Officer to take the decision. Another important point to be noted is that the appointment of the petitioner is on a non-granted post. Still, by giving a reminder on 13.04.2026, the Management tried to pose that there would be loss to the students if approval is not granted. On the next day of the said reminder, present petition has been filed. Under such circumstances, in fact, we ought to have imposed costs on the petitioner, however, taking into consideration that he is an Assistant Teacher, we are refraining ourselves.

¶15

We dispose of the petition by directing respondent no.2 to decide such representation of the petitioner on or before 01.07.2026.

¶16

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]

¶17

[ SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]

¶18

KBP

Zaid Toman Abdul Rahman v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary School Education Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaid Toman Abdul Rahman v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary School Education Dept.

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

Dhanaji Sahebrao Chobe and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.

Ambika Sevabhavi Sanstha Old Autha Nanded vs the State of Maharashtra Th. Its Secretory Dept of School Education and Sports. and Ors.

Keshav Rama Muddewad vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Ukha Walmik Sonawane vs the Chief Executive Officer Zill Parishad, Jalgaon and Ors.

Shashikala Vinayak Ketkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shriram Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Anr.