1 31wp2524.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2524 OF 2026 (Ramesh s/o Ramlal Dhandu and ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State. Mr. R.M. Bhangade, Advocate for intervenor. Mr. Amol Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATED : 22-06-2026. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 – Zilla Parishad is under an obligation to include the name of the petitioners in the seniority list prepared for the promotion on the post of Extension Officer (Education)/Kendra Pramukh and Higher Grade Headmaster. The consequent prayer for setting aside the seniority list dated 12.3.2026, which according to them, is incorrect, is also made. 3. This Court vide its order dated 26.3.2026, relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trus Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2025) SCC OnLine 1912 and judgment in Writ Petition No. 2785/2026 (Javid Khan Salimuddin Khan & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors), dated 13.3.2026 has issued notices. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further fairly states that Writ Petition No. 2785/2026 (Javid Khan Salimuddin Khan & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors) was dismissed on 29.4.2026 Belkhede 2026:BHC-NAG:7936-DB 2 31wp2524.2026.doc by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Aurangabad. He further submits that the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.4.2026 is not disturbed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Even, the learned counsel for respondents have categorically stated that the question which arose before the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench is answered in paragraph 4.27 and in that view of the matter, the petitioners who were not holding qualification of TET- CTET would not be entitled for the promotion. He has invited our attention to paragraph 4.27 of the said judgment, passed by the Coordinate Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 2787/2026, the same is reproduced as under: 1) Teachers until qualify TET/CTET, cannot reserve a right for promotion in the promotion process, and even though the TET/CTET examination has been conducted prior to the initiation of the promotion process; AND 2) TET/CTET qualification shall not be retrospectively applicable for the purpose of promotion. Since, it is undisputed fact that petitioners were not holding the qualification of TET/CTET on the date on which the promotion process took place, they would not be entitled for the relief claimed in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J) Belkhede