24-WP-7683-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7683 OF 2025 Shri. Pawan Subhash Shinde ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra Through, the Secretary, Ministry of Energy And Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Hrishikesh S. Shinde a/w Rahul B. Khot for the Petitioner. Mr. R. P. Kadam ‘B’ Panel Advocate for the Respondent-State. Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale a/w Abhishek Ingale & Vrunali Vilankar for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 29, 2026. P. C. : 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter/ communication dated 01.04.2025 issued by respondent No. 2, canceling the petitioner's candidature and holding the petitioner ineligible for the post of Assistant Engineer (Transmission) under the Degree quota against Advertisement No. 09 of 2024 from the open category. 2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, Harish 1 of 4 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.31 19:29:12 +0530 24-WP-7683-2025.doc the petitioner was appointed on 28.11.2017 on the post of Assistant Technician from the open category. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the SEBC category. The Petitioner had already submitted the necessary documents, such as the caste certiicate and caste validity certiicate. The Clause No. 6.2 in the Employment Advertisement No. 09 of 2024, which is at page No. 17, do not specify any particular date for the submission of documents. He submits that the date 31.07.2024 mentioned in the impugned communication is in respect of direct recruits and would not be applicable to the Petitioner. He submits that in view of the above, the impugned communication be set aside. 3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that, they have iled their reply aidavit opposing the contention in respect of clause No. 6.2. in respect of the cut-of date. He submits that, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have strictly acted as per clause No. 2.4 of the advertisement and no fault can be found with the impugned communication. He submits that, there is no merit in the petition and the same may be dismissed. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the papers on record. Harish 2 of 4 24-WP-7683-2025.doc There is no dispute that, the Petitioner applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 09 of 2024 for the promotional post and not pursuant to Advertisement No.06 of 2024. The Clause No. 6 of Advertisement No.09 of 2024 under the heading 'Reservation' provides that, the candidates claiming the beneit of reservation under backward class will have to submit their caste certiicate, caste validity certiicate, and domicile certiicate issued by the competent authority of the Government of Maharashtra at the time of document veriication. At the same time, Clause No. 6 of Advertisement No. 06 of 2024 speaks that the candidates claiming the beneit of reservation under backward class will have to submit caste certiicate and domicile certiicate issued by the competent authority of the Government of Maharashtra valid on the date of eligibility, i.e. 31.07.2024. As the Petitioner had not applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 06 of 2024, there is no question of application of Clause No. 6.2 in the advertisement of 06 of 2024. It is clear from Clause No. 6.2 of Advertisement No. 09 of 2024 that, there is no cut-of date mentioned. Therefore, reference of a cut-of date in the impugned communication is uncalled for. The Petitioner has already submitted the required documents to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 5. In view of the above undisputed aspects of the matter, we pass the following order. Harish 3 of 4 24-WP-7683-2025.doc ORDER a) The impugned communication/letter is quashed and set aside. The petitioner's candidature be considered for the promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Transmission) as per the advertisement pursuant to which he applied in accordance with law. b) The petition is disposed of. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 4 of 4