1 3-wp 10363-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10363 OF 2026 Dr. Smita Sahebrao Shinde .. Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others .. Respondents Mr. Sushant Dixit, Advocate h/f Mr. Srujan Nirkhee, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 01st SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the State. 2. The prayers in the petition read as under : A. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Writ Petition; B. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the complete record and proceedings of the interview of the Petitioner dated 24.07.2026 for the post of Associate Professor in History conducted by Respondent No. 2, including attendance of Selection Committee members, assessment sheets, marks allotted, minutes, mandatory 2026:BHC-AUG:40168-DB 2 3-wp 10363-2026.odt video/audio recordings and all other connected documents; C. After perusal of the record, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold and declare that the interview conducted by Respondent No. 2 on 24.07.2026 in respect of the Petitioner was illegal, arbitrary, non-transparent and contrary to the prescribed guidelines,Government Resolution and UGC Regulations; D. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 to re-conduct the interview of the Petitioner for the post of Associate Professor in History in a transparent manner and before duly constituted selection committee as per the GR/Regulations; E. That, pending hearing and disposal of the present Writ Petition, Respondent No. 2 be restrained from issuing any appointment order for the post of Associate Professors to any candidate; F. That, pending hearing and disposal of the present Writ Petition, Respondent No. 2 be directed to preserve and produce before this Hon’ble Court the complete audio/video recording and entire record of interview dated 24.07.2026; G. Ad-Interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause E and F; H. Any other suitable relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and oblige; 3. This Court made a query as to whether the result of the interview is out and whether any marks are allotted and those are 3 3-wp 10363-2026.odt declared. The learned advocate for the petitioner expressed that as on today no results are declared and no marks are communicated even individually. Under this circumstances this Court finds that, today, it is only apprehension in the mind of the petitioner because of allegation that she was not allowed to give presentation at the time of interview. It is thus apprehension that, as she is not allowed even to give presentation at the time of interview, the committee has bias and grudge against her. 4. This Court finds that, today, there is only apprehension that the petitioner would not be considered and she will not be given the marks i.e. 20% marks for her performance. As on today, this Court finds that it is only apprehension and there is no cause of action is shown to entertain the writ petition. It is kept open to the petitioner to approach this Court in case any cause of action arises. 5. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6. Needless to say that, all contentions are kept open. ( JITENDRA JAIN, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.