{1} 64-wp-12098-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 64 WRIT PETITION NO. 12098 OF 2026 Bhaidas Harji Rathod VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Mr. Paresh Patil (Borse), Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for State ....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered by respondent No.2, thereby disposing of the appeal/representation of the petitioner, by misinterpreting the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.14542 of 2025. 2. The petitioner is appointed as Peon with respondent No.6 w.e.f. 01.02.2010. Initially, the approval to his service was rejected. The petitioner therefore, approached respondent No.1. By order dated 28.05.2021, passed by respondent No.1, the approval was granted to the post of petitioner from '01.06.2014' and not from the date of his appointment i.e., '01.02.2010'. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Minister, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare 2026:BHC-AUG:42674-DB {2} 64-wp-12098-2026 Department by way of an appeal. 3. Since, the appeal was not being decided, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.14542 of 2025, wherein this Court, by order dated 04.12.2025, has directed to adopt the due procedure of law for disposal of pending appeal of the petitioner. 4. After the decision of this Court, respondent No.2 has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that, this Court has directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the School Tribunal. 5. The impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed by respondent No.2 is based on misinterpretation of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14542 of 2025. 6. By way of an appeal, the petitioner has sought correction of his date of approval from ‘01.06.2014' to '01.02.2010'. Instead of considering the appeal of the petitioner on merits, respondent No.2 has erroneously disposed of the same on the above stated ground. The relief sought by the petitioner in the appeal cannot be sought before the School Tribunal. 7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. {3} 64-wp-12098-2026 8. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set- aside. 9. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for consideration on merits. The appeal of the petitioner shall be decided on its own merits within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde