89-WP-10296-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10296 OF 2022 Shashikant Shripati Kshirsagar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ashwini Bandiwadekar & Mr. Utkarsh Desai, for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondents-State. Mr. Sagar Mane, for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Mr. M. S. Topkar with Ms. Bhargavi Patil & Mr. Neev Patil, for the Respondent No.6. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 28, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 2/7th January 2020 passed by the Respondent No.3-Education Oicer deciding the seniority inter se between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.6. 2. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would point out that the impugned order is unreasoned, non- speaking order and only notes the submissions of the parties. 3. Mr. Topkar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6 would fairly not support the impugned order. Gaikwad RD 1 of 3 89-WP-10296-2022.doc 4. Perusal of the impugned order would substantiate the contention of Mr. Bandiwadekar. After noting the rival claims, the Education Oicer has passed the order without any discussion and without any inding on the questions itself forming part of the impugned order. It is expected that the Respondent No.3, being the quasi-judicial authority, while deciding the inter se seniority dispute will give proper reasons and proper inings, which indicate application of mind. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the same is an unreasoned and non-speaking order, which cannot be sustained. It would, therefore, be appropriate, if the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the issue is remitted to Education Oicer to be decided afresh, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The impugned order dated 2/7th January 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The dispute is remitted to the Education Oicer to be decided afresh. 7. The parties to appear before the Education Oicer on 5th October 2026. 8. The Education Oicer shall hear the parties and take a decision afresh on the inter se seniority between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 expeditiously, in any event within a period of six weeks from the date of irst appearance of the parties. Gaikwad RD 2 of 3 89-WP-10296-2022.doc 9. It is expected that a detailed, reasoned and speaking order will be passed by the Respondent No.3. 10. The Petition is allowed in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Gaikwad RD 3 of 3 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2026.09.29 15:01:55 +0530