Jyoti Devrao Bharati vs State of Government of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jyoti Devrao Bharati vs State of Government of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner's representations (including a fresh representation to be filed within one week) within four weeks of receipt, after hearing the Petitioner; rights and contentions kept open; liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition if aggrieved by the decision; disposed with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondent Corporation's order dated 24 May 2023 appointing Respondent No.3 on contractual basis as Legal Advisor was illegal and arbitrary and should be quashed and set aside. +2 more

Court's answer

The prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24 May 2023 appointing Respondent No.3 on contractual basis as Legal Advisor has become infructuous.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 undertook, in a statement accepted by the Court, to consider the Petitioner's representations in a time-bound manner and pass an appropriate decision after hearing the Petitioner.

Key takeaways

The Petitioner may file a fresh representation within one week, and Respondent No.2 is directed to consider all representations, including the fresh one, within four weeks of its receipt.ratio¶28
The rights and contentions of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition and the Interim Application are kept open to be urged before Respondent No.2.ratio¶29
If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by Respondent No.2 on the representations, liberty is granted to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the same.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Writ Petition No. 825 of 2024 (with I.A. Nos. 4018 of 2025 and 1821 of 2024), Coram R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., decided 22 January 2026. Petitioner Jyoti Devrao Bharati sought quashing of the Respondent-Corporation's order dated 24 May 2023 appointing Respondent No.3 on contractual basis as Legal Advisor, and her own promotion to Chief Law Officer as senior-most eligible employee in the Law Officer cadre; the quashing prayer had become infructuous. Her grievance that representations (including one dated 30 May 2023) were not considered was addressed by Respondent No.2's accepted undertaking to consider them in a time-bound manner after hearing her. The Petitioner was permitted to file a fresh representation within one week; Respondent No.2 was directed to decide within four weeks of receipt; rights and contentions were kept open; and liberty was granted to file a fresh Writ Petition if aggrieved. The Writ Petition and the Interim Applications (concerning extension of Respondent No.3's contractual engagement, alleged violation of Government Resolutions dated 17 February 2016 and 10 June 2025, and the Audit Department, Nagpur objection) were disposed of with no order as to costs.

PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR

1 2-WP-825-2024 (OS).doc

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.01.22 18:46:06 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4018 OF 2025 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1821 OF 2024 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2024

Jyoti Devrao Bharati ...Applicant Versus

State of Government of Maharashtra ...Respondents

Ms. Seema Chopda for the Applicant/Petitioner.

Ms. Jaymala Ostwal, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar a/w Ms. Priyesha Patil and Ms. Sejal for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATED : 22ND JANUARY, 2026

P.C.:-

By this Writ Petition the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent – Corporation to quash and set aside the illegal and arbitrary order dated 24 May 2023 of appointing Respondent No.3 on contractual basis as (Legal Advisor) and direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Chief Law Officer or as Legal Advisor being senior most and eligible employee, in the cadre of Law Officer.

The prayer in so far as quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24 May 2023 has become infructuous.

1/3

Pallavi

2 2-WP-825-2024 (OS).doc

The Petitioner has filed several representations to the Respondent No.2. One such representation has been annexed to the Petition being representation dated 30 May 2023 requesting Respondent No.2 to cancel/revoke contractual employment of Respondent No.3 to the post of Legal Advisor and to appoint the Petitioner on the promotional post of Chief Law Officer. The grievance of the Petitioner is that until date the Respondents have not considered the representation of the Petitioner.

There are Interim Applications filed by the Petitioner seeking direction not to extend contractual engagement of Respondent No.3 which the Petitioner has alleged, is in violation of impugned Government Resolution dated 17 February 2016 and 10 June 2025 and also in regard to the objection raised by Audit Department, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

The Writ Petition as it stands, does not challenge the recent contractual engagement of Respondent No.3. In view of the representations not having been considered by the Respondents, Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 states that Respondent No.2 will consider the representations of the Petitioners in time-bound manner and pass appropriate decision, after hearing the Petitioner. This statement is accepted.

In view of the above statement, the Petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation within a period of one week from today apart from the representations already filed with Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2

2/3

Pallavi

3 2-WP-825-2024 (OS).doc

is directed to consider such representation of the Petitioner including the fresh representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation of the Petitioner.

The rights and contentions of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as Interim Application are kept open to be urged before the Respondent No.2.

Upon a fresh decision being taken by Respondent No.2 on the representations including the fresh representation of the Petitioner which shall be filed within a period of one week from today, in the event the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision so taken, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the same.

The present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Interim Applications filed in the present Writ Petition do not survive and are also disposed of.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

3/3

Pallavi