1 81.WP.2031.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2023 MAHADEV KASHINATHRAV DHAPATE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sahebrao A. Nagarsoge AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.D. Batule Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16.09.2026 PER COURT: 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the communication/letter dated 08.12.2022 (Exhibit-H), issued by respondent No.3, by which the petitioner is denied appointment as Primary Teacher, on the ground that the petitioner's name is not mentioned in the seniority list of the teachers working in Residential School (Vasti Shala), Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a voluntary teacher as per appointment order dated 01.07.2002. Pursuant to the selection of the petitioner as a voluntary teacher, an agreement was executed between 2026:BHC-AUG:43073-DB 2 81.WP.2031.23.odt the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat/Gram Shikshan Samiti, and the petitioner joined the service as a voluntary teacher at Bhoi Vasti Shala, at Laul Kramank 1, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed, and started working with effect from 01.07.2002. The petitioner is since then working at Bhoi Vasti School till date. 3. By order dated 06.10.2003 the petitioner was directed to carry out the work of Enumerator for survey of the families below the poverty line. 4. The petitioner, from time to time, represented to the respondents to absorb him in the Zilla Parishad service, in terms of Government Resolutions dated 27.09.2011 and 01.03.2014. Since then the representations of the petitioner were not considered. He approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3032/2022. This Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said directions, respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order. 5. The impugned order, in our view, is unsustainable, as the same is an unreasoned order. Without assigning any reason the service rendered by the petitioner since 2002 is not taken into consideration. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained, as it is based on irrelevant considerations. 3 81.WP.2031.23.odt 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to place the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place, taking into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioner and absorb him in the Zilla Parishad service, as per his turn. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) habeeb/