Disposed¶19

Vikas Khandu Nadekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2026WP/7310/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition disposed by withdrawal; Article 226 Maharashtra; TET-I vs TET-II trained teacher eligibility; impugned communication dated 04.06.2026; Government Notification dated 18.07.2025; Government Resolution dated 29.08.2025; NCTE Guidelines; Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator (Cluster Head); Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary); withdrawal with liberty to challenge substantive appointments; all contentions kept open; Kulkarni & Sathe JJ.; 12 June 2026; WP 7310 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the substantive appointments as and when made; all contentions on the proposed challenge expressly kept open. No adjudication on merits. ¶19

Vikas Khandu Nadekar and Anr. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned communication dated 04.06.2026 and the annexed letter/check list, to the extent permitting Trained Teachers who have passed only TET-I paper (and not TET-II), are contrary to the Government Notification dated 18.07.2025, the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2025 and the NCTE Guidelines, and therefore liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Leave was granted and the Petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the substantive appointments as and when made.

¶19

Key takeaways

All contentions of the parties on the proposed challenge were expressly kept open.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.; 12 June 2026) in Writ Petition No. 7310 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners challenged the impugned communication dated 04.06.2026 and its annexed letter/check list to the extent it permits Trained Teachers who have passed only TET-I (and not TET-II), contending it is contrary to the Government Notification dated 18.07.2025, the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2025 and the NCTE Guidelines; a mandamus was also sought to implement those instruments and to restrict consideration for the post of Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator (Cluster Head) to candidates with prescribed essential qualifications for Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary). After the Petition was heard for some time, counsel for the Petitioners sought leave to withdraw with liberty to challenge the substantive appointments as and when made. The Petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed, and all contentions on the proposed challenge were expressly kept open. No issue was adjudicated on merits.

¶1

905- WP-7310-2026.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7310 OF 2026

¶4

Vikas Khandu Nadekar And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, for Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶7

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

¶8

DATE:12^th JUNE 2026

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the

¶11

following substantive reliefs:

¶12

“A) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

¶13

B) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned communication dated 04.06.2026 and the letter/ check list annexed thereto, to the extent permitting Trained Teacher having passed only TET-I paper and has not passed TET-II paper are contrary to the Government Notification dated 18.07.2025, the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2025, and the NCTE Guidelines and, consequently quash and set aside impugned communication dated 04.06.2026 alongwith letter/check list annexed thereto to the extent permitting trained teacher ha11 having passed only TET-I paper.

¶14

C) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to strictly implement the Government Notification dated 18.07.2025 and the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2025, and to consider only those candidates for the post of Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator (Cluster Head) who possess the essential qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary)”

¶15

After the Petition was heard for some time, learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the substantive appointments as and when made.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Shivgan

¶18

905- WP-7310-2026.DOC

¶19

The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶20

All contentions of the parties on the proposed challenge, as stated above, are expressly kept open.

¶21

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶22

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2026.06.12 17:52:38 +0530

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

Shivgan

Vikas Khandu Nadekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Khandu Nadekar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs Raj Enterprises Ay 2016-17 Ita 3220/MUM/2022

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 8 Mumbai vs Nicholas Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Ay 2006 07 Ita 1280 Mum 2013

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai vs Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd.

Navkiran Power Loom Owners Industrial Co-Operative Soc.Ltd. Vs the Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Premila Sambhaji Khade and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Its Secretary and Ors.

Shitalanath Prakash Kasture and Ors. vs Premila Sambhaji Khade and Ors.