Bombay High Court
WP/7014/2024 of ARATI WASUDEO UPALPAWAR AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. DY. DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER SURVEYS AND DEVPT. AGENCY, NAGPUR AND ORS on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
12-WP-7014-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7014/2024
ARATI WASUDEO UPALPAWAR AND OTHERS
VS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR AND ORS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Khushi Raju Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioner (s).
Mrs. K.H. Bhondge, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM :
ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE :
OCTOBER 06, 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. On 30.09.2026, the following order was passed : “Heard.
2. The select list for the post for which the petitioners had applied and interviewed, was prepared on 17.07.2019. It pertains to services in the laboratory. The stand of Government, inter alia, is based on communication dated 15.05.2015 issued by Water Supply and Sanitation Department. It has been specifically communicated that unless the laboratory under Groundwater Surveys and Development Agency is not set up, appointment of staff should not be made as it would render the appointees sitting idle. What was however permitted is to complete the process of selection and to prepare the wait-list.
3. In the present case, though the process of selection to prepare the select- list is completed, the laboratories were not set up within time. Accordingly, the petitioners were not given appointment.
4. Another aspect, which is relevant, is that the wait-list is valid for one year in terms of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2022. The select list was prepared on 02.08.2019. The laboratories were not handed over for more than one year. That apart, COVID-19 pandemic affected the process which ultimately resulted in lapse of the select list.
5. In the circumstances, it is quite challenging for petitioners to seek direction as prayed for.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to take instructions. Time is granted.
7. List on 06.10.2026.” Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:13297-DB
12-WP-7014-2024
3. As could be seen, the respondents have taken action in terms of the communication dated 15.05.2015. The said communication has been not challenged.
4. That being so, and for the reasons stated in the order dated 30.09.2026, we are not inclined to invoke the writ jurisdiction, particularly, in the light of the fact that the appointment under question was to be made on contractual basis for short duration.
5. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya