Disposed¶23

Shaikh Reshma Jabbar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026WP/734/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of writ petition between benches; territorial jurisdiction Nagpur Bench; Zilla Parishad experience certificate cancellation; unilateral cancellation without opportunity of hearing; termination and reinstatement; Appeal No.70 of 2025 Additional Commissioner Nagpur; Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964; CEO Zilla Parishad Beed and Nagpur; Extension Officer Education appointment; minority institution teacher approval.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition transferred to the High Court's Bench at Nagpur; Registry to take necessary steps. ¶23

Shaikh Reshma Jabbar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition transferred to the High Court's Bench at Nagpur; Registry to take necessary steps.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Territorial jurisdiction: whether the petition concerning the alleged inaction of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur in not reinstating the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court, warranting transfer from the Aurangabad Bench. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The main action that ought to have been taken by the petitioner was to challenge the non-reinstatement by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, in spite of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Where the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division had granted liberty to the Zilla Parishad to take any action in respect of disciplinary enquiry or any other action, the petitioner should be heard before such action.

¶20

Key takeaways

The setting aside of the order or report dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed is ancillary.ratio¶20
The jurisdiction to entertain the alleged inaction of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur is within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench; accordingly, the petition is transferred to this Court's Bench at Nagpur.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Writ Petition No.734 of 2026, decided 22 January 2026 (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.). The petitioner, formerly a Maths teacher in a minority institution approved as Graduate Teacher (w.e.f. 07.06.2012) and later Assistant Teacher, obtained an experience certificate (applied 29.05.2024) after serving till 31.12.2015, and was appointed Extension Officer (Education) at Nagpur on 28.08.2024. Following a complaint, a Committee reported on 17.01.2024 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, headmaster or management; the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed unilaterally cancelled the certificate and formally set it aside by order dated 09.06.2025 (certificate dated 26.06.2024); the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur terminated her services on 26.11.2025 on the ground that the certificate was not in force. In Appeal No.70 of 2025 the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur set aside the termination by order dated 23.12.2025 and directed reinstatement, granting the Zilla Parishad liberty to follow the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 procedure if occasion arose. As the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur refused reinstatement citing the cancelled certificate, the petition was filed. Held: the principal action lay in challenging the non-reinstatement by the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur; the Beed setting-aside order dated 09.06.2025 is ancillary; jurisdiction over the alleged inaction rests with the Nagpur Bench. Petition transferred to the Nagpur Bench; Registry directed to take necessary steps.

¶1

967-wp-734-2026.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

967 WRIT PETITION NO.734 OF 2026

¶4

Shaikh Reshma Jabbar

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶7

Mr. Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents/State. Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶9

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 22 JANUARY 2026

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner contends that she was serving in a minority institution and was teaching the Maths subject. She then applied for the post of Graduate Teacher on further and non grant basis and she came to be appointed with effect from 07.06.2012. The headmaster of the school had forwarded proposal for her approval. The Education Officer had not taken any step and, therefore, request was renewed. The Education

¶14

[1]

¶15

967-wp-734-2026.odt

¶16

Officer granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on 22.03.2014. After one year, she was granted approval for the post of Assistant Teacher from 15.06.2014. She served the said school till 31.12.2015. She therefore resigned on 11.09.2015. She had served for 3 years, 6 months and 16 days in the said school. She was in need of experience certificate and, therefore made an application on 29.05.2024. The Education Officer had then issued the certificate after verifying the documents. On the basis of said experience certificate, she was appointed on the post of Extension Officer Education on 28.08.2024 at Nagpur. Some complaint was made and, therefore, Committee was appointed. The Committee prepared its report on 17.01.2024. It was without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the headmaster or the management where she worked. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed had then taken unilateral decision of cancelling the experience certificate of the petitioner and informed the same to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur by order dated 26.11.2025 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that experience certificate granted to the petitioner is not in force now. The order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur in Appeal No.70 of 2025. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur by order dated 23.12.2025 set aside

¶17

[2]

¶18

967-wp-734-2026.odt

¶19

the termination order and directed the petitioner to be reinstated in service. Liberty was granted to the Zilla Parishad to follow the procedure if occasion arises in respect of procedure to be followed for Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, however, the Chief Executive Officer, Nagpur is not allowing the petitioner to be reinstated on the point that the experience certificate has been cancelled and, hence, the present petition.

¶20

The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is that the main action that ought to have been taken on behalf of the petitioner is to challenge the action of non reinstatement, in spite of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur appears to have taken into consideration the fact about the order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed on 09.06.2025 setting aside the experience certificate dated 26.06.2024. In fact, when the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur had granted liberty to Zilla Parishad to take any action in respect of disciplinary enquiry or any other action, then she should be heard. The setting aside of the order or report dated 09.06.2025 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed is ancillary and, therefore, in our opinion, the jurisdiction to entertain the alleged inaction on the part of

¶21

[3]

¶22

967-wp-734-2026.odt

¶23

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur is within the jurisdiction of Nagpur Bench and, therefore, we transfer the petition to this Court Bench at Nagpur.

¶24

4. Registry to take necessary steps.

¶25

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

scm

¶27

[4]

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Non-reinstatement of the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur despite the Additional Commissioner's order dated 23.12.2025 setting aside her termination; the CEO, Nagpur refuses reinstatement on the ground that the experience certificate has been cancelled.¶19
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, serving in a minority institution teaching Maths, applied for the post of Graduate Teacher on further and non-grant basis and was appointed with effect from 07.06.2012.¶13
Prior proceeding
Proposal forwarded by the headmaster; after renewed requests, the Education Officer granted approval to the petitioner's appointment on 22.03.2014.¶16
Prior proceeding
One year later, the petitioner was granted approval for the post of Assistant Teacher from 15.06.2014.¶16
Prior proceeding
She served the school till 31.12.2015, resigned on 11.09.2015, having served 3 years, 6 months and 16 days.¶16
Prior proceeding
In need of an experience certificate, she applied on 29.05.2024; the Education Officer issued the certificate after verifying the documents.¶16
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the experience certificate she was appointed Extension Officer (Education) on 28.08.2024 at Nagpur.¶16
Prior proceeding
A complaint led to the appointment of a Committee, which prepared its report on 17.01.2024 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the headmaster or the management.¶16
Prior proceeding
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed took a unilateral decision cancelling the experience certificate and informed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.¶16
Prior proceeding
Formally, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed passed an order/report dated 09.06.2025 setting aside the experience certificate dated 26.06.2024.¶20
Prior proceeding
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur terminated the petitioner's services by order dated 26.11.2025 on the ground that the experience certificate was not in force.¶16
Prior proceeding
The termination order was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur in Appeal No.70 of 2025.¶16
Prior proceeding
By order dated 23.12.2025 the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur set aside the termination order and directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service (sentence continues at paragraph 19 after page break).¶16
Prior proceeding
The Additional Commissioner granted the Zilla Parishad liberty to follow the procedure, if occasion arises, under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.¶19

Shaikh Reshma Jabbar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Reshma Jabbar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Narendra Bendale vs the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Nashik and Others

Sanjay Shantilal Gundecha vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rupali Panditrao Shinde and Another vs the Registrar Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Another

Manohar Shivaji Patil vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyandeo Namdeo Bade and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Late Radhatai Musale Junior College Thr Its Principal Panjab Tukaram Gavhanekar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others