0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views3 pages

Writ Order

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay is hearing Writ Petition No. 5704 of 2026, filed by Ravindra Ingole and others against the State of Maharashtra regarding a selection process affected by a marking pattern leakage. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal had previously dismissed the original application despite acknowledging the leakage, leading to a majority opinion that the selection was not vitiated. The court has issued a notice to the respondents and directed the parties to maintain status quo until the next hearing on August 4, 2026.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views3 pages

Writ Order

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay is hearing Writ Petition No. 5704 of 2026, filed by Ravindra Ingole and others against the State of Maharashtra regarding a selection process affected by a marking pattern leakage. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal had previously dismissed the original application despite acknowledging the leakage, leading to a majority opinion that the selection was not vitiated. The court has issued a notice to the respondents and directed the parties to maintain status quo until the next hearing on August 4, 2026.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

[Link].5704.

2026
1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY


NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5704 OF 2026
Ravindra S/o. Dinkar Ingole & Ors.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
______________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr. D.P. Thakare, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.
-------------------------------

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.


DATE : 28.07.2026

Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned Senior Counsel


instructed by Mr. A.M. Tirukh, learned counsel for the
petitioners.

2. The contention is that, by the impugned judgment dated


17th July, 2026 passed by the learned Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1189 of
2025, the learned Tribunal, after recording and admitting the
fact that there was a leakage in the marking pattern and that the
said fact had placed certain candidates in an advantageous
position, has, by a majority opinion, held that the selection
process was not vitiated.

3. The learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to


Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein
it is specifically provided that whenever there is a difference of
opinion between the two Members constituting a Division
Bench of the Tribunal, they shall state the point or points on
[Link].5704.2026
2/3

which they differ, and such point or points shall either be heard
by the Chairman himself or be referred by him for hearing to
one or more of the other Members of the Tribunal.

4. In the present case, when the Division Bench of the


Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal heard the aforesaid
Original Application, there was a difference of opinion between
the learned Vice-Chairman (Judicial) and the learned Member
(Administrative). Accordingly, the Chairman of the Tribunal
referred the aforesaid Original Application to the third Member
(Judicial) of the Aurangabad Bench. However, neither the
Division Bench at the Nagpur Bench nor the Chairman
referred the matter to the third Member by specifically stating
the point or points on which they differed, as mandated under
Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

5. The learned Tribunal, by virtue of the majority


judgment, has now dismissed the aforesaid Original
Application and has permitted the respondents to declare the
result and issue the promotional orders in accordance with the
Rules. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. In view of the above, issue notice to the respondents,


returnable on 4th August, 2026.

7. Mr. D.P. Thakare, learned Additional Government


Pleader, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2/State.

8. Petitioner(s) is/are permitted to serve the remaining


respondent(s) by private mode, in addition to regular mode of
[Link].5704.2026
3/3

service and file an affidavit by next date, failing which the


petitioner(s) shall deposit costs of Rupees Five Hundred with
‘Public Welfare Account’ bearing No.129712010001014, IFSC
Code UBIN0812978 with Union Bank of India, Branch High
Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

9. Office objection(s), if any, shall be removed before next


date.

10. For the reasons stated above, in the meantime, the parties
are directed to maintain status quo till the returnable date.

11. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the


parties.

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)


Vijaykumar

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar


Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/07/2026 18:10:31

You might also like