1 933-WP-8697-19.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8697 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4093 OF 2026 IN WP/8697/2019 AADIL SAYYED AZAM AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Sr. Advocate i/b Ms. Khushi K. Varma, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondent/State Dr. R. J. Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 08th APRIL, 2026 PER COURT : 1. By this petition, petitioners challenge office order dated 05/04/2019, passed by the Principal District Judge, Nanded, thereby terminating services of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and deleting name of petitioner No.3 from the select list, for not acquiring required qualification. 2. By filing Civil Application No.4093/2026, petitioners have placed on record copies of the order dated 10/02/2023, passed by this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.3251/2021 [Saifali Jabbar Shekh and Others Vs. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Through its Registrar General (Administration) and Others] and order dated 04/04/2022, passed in Writ Petition No.1231/2022 SVH 2026:BHC-AUG:15781-DB 2 933-WP-8697-19.odt [Pawan Devanand Rudrakshawar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others], which according to the learned Senior Advocate for petitioners were filed by the similarly situated candidates like the petitioners. 3. While disposing of Writ Petition No.3251/2021, this Court at Nagpur Bench has observed that, “2. We find that similarly situated candidates had made representations and their representations were duly considered and appropriately decided by the High Court. Some of the candidates were the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1231/2022. 3. Shri Chavan, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks similar liberty for these petitioners while withdrawing this petition. 4. Accordingly, leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to make representations by each of the petitioners to the High Court is granted. If representations are made by the petitioners within two weeks, we expect that same shall be duly considered and appropriately decided by the High Court at the earliest.” 4. While disposing of Writ Petition No.1231/2022, following order is passed, “. On 21 March 2022 following order was passed: “Again request is made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners for adjournment. The Petitioners had taken time to inform the Court whether the Petitioners are pursuing the matter on merits or will make representation to the Respondents. The stand is not being made clear inspite of adjournment. 2. Stand over to 4 April 2022. To be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’.” 2. Today the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks SVH 3 933-WP-8697-19.odt leave to withdraw the Writ Petition to make representation. 3. By way of indulgence, we grant the prayer of withdrawal of the Writ Petition to enable the Petitioners to make representation to the concerned Respondent. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of, as withdrawn.” 5. We are inclined to pass the similar order. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make representation to the High Court. If the representation is made by the petitioners within a period of two weeks, we expect that the same shall be duly considered and appropriately decided by the High Court at the earliest. 6. Accordingly, the civil application also stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH