Kishor Raghunath Chaudhar vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kishor Raghunath Chaudhar vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by directing Respondent No.3 to decide the Petitioner's representations within a period of fifteen days from today, in view of the observations made by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3 should decide the Petitioner's pending representations concerning issuance of the appointment order, given his inclusion in the final list under the exservicemen quota (open) for the Arogya Sevak posts. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent No.3 is bound by the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2016, and the Petitioner has duly adhered to the same.

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner's prayer challenging the communication dated 21.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 is misconceived, because Respondent No.2 is not the appointing authority.

Key takeaways

The communication issued by Respondent No.2 has nothing to do with any opinion that might have been given by Respondent No.2, nor does it have any connection with the appointing procedure undertaken by Respondent No.3.ratio¶¶18
Since the Petitioner's name has already been included in the final list, only the last part remains to be considered by Respondent No.3.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 462 of 2026 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.; decided 18 April 2026, Per Court). An ex-armyman petitioner, earlier appointed as Staff Male Nurse under order dated 06.06.2024 from the ex-armyman quota, appeared in the final list under the exservicemen quota (open) in the recruitment carried out by Respondent No.3 for Arogya Sevak posts, but no appointment order was issued and his e-mail representations went undecided. His challenge to a communication dated 21.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 was held misconceived, Respondent No.2 not being the appointing authority; the Court reiterated that that communication had no bearing on the opinion of Respondent No.2 or on the appointing procedure of Respondent No.3, who is bound by the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2016, to which the Petitioner had adhered. With the Petitioner's name already in the final list, only the last part remained for Respondent No.3's consideration. The writ petition was disposed of by directing Respondent No.3 to decide the representations within fifteen days, in view of the Court's observations.

2026:BHC-AUG:16835-DB

912.odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

912 WRIT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2026

Kishor Raghunath Chaudhar ….Petitioner VERSUS

State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary and Others …..Respondents

Mr. S. P. Salgar h/f Mr. Waybhase Gorakshnath Tukaram, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for the Respondents – State Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No.3

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : 18^th April, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. The Petitioner has challenged the communication dated

21.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.2. However, it appears that the prayer is misconceived as Respondent No.2 is not the appointing authority. Since the Petitioner is an ex-armyman, he might have approached Respondent No.2. According to the Petitioner, he was appointed as a Staff Male Nurse under the order dated 06.06.2024 from ex-armyman quota. At that time, he had also applied for other different posts and in view of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2016, had submitted a self-

912.odt

(2)

declaration to the appointing authority. When the recruitment process was carried out by Respondent No.3 for the posts of Arogya Sevak, his name appeared in the final list under the exservicemen quota (open). However, according to the Petitioner, the appointment order has not yet been issued to him.

It appears that the Petitioner has made several representations to Respondent No.3 through e-mails; however, the same have not been decided. In these circumstances, we had asked the learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar for Respondent

No.3 to take instructions from Respondent No.3 when those representations would be decided. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.3, upon instructions, submits that the said representations would be decided within a period of two weeks from today.

We reiterate that the communication issued by Respondent No.2 has nothing to do with any opinion that might have been given by Respondent No.2, nor does it have any connection with the appointing procedure undertaken by Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is bound by the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2016, and the Petitioner has duly adhered to the same.

912.odt

When the Petitioner’s name has already been included in the final list, only the last part is required to be considered by Respondent No.3.

We dispose of the writ petition by directing Respondent No.3 to decide the representations of the Petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today, in view of the observations made by this Court.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

Sameer