Bombay High Court
WP/4310/2018 of SHRI. SANJAY GIRDHAR PARTETI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. ITS SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT. MUMBAI AND OTHERS on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
(1)
27-WP-4310-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4310/2018
SHRI. SANJAY GIRDHAR PARTETI
VS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the Petitioner (s).
Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM :
ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE :
OCTOBER 07, 2026.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. The counsels are ad idem that the issue involved is covered by the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 10580/2015 (Sou. Revati Kusha Wagh & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) dated 09.03.2017 and other connected matters, wherein the Court held that the ban imposed vide the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 would not apply to the appointment which was made from the reserved category after following due procedure of law.
3. That being so, similar course should follow here. Accordingly and for the reasons stated in Revati Wagh’s case (supra), it is held that the ban imposed vide the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 would not apply to the appointment which was made from the reserved category after following due procedure of law. Necessary benefits be extended to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment.
4. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:13441-DB