High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Adjudicated Two Writ Petitions Concerning University Employee Service Matters. Petitions Involve Multiple Employees as Petitioners and State/University Authorities as Respondents, with Amendment Ordered on 06.10.2023.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The provided judgment text consists solely of the cause title and party details for two writ petitions, Writ Petition Nos. 313 and 616 of 2022, before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. In Writ Petition No. 313 of 2022, the petitioners are eleven individuals, all shown as employed and residing in Nagpur, including Prashant R. Vaidya, Sunil Krushnarao Ingle, Anil Anandrao Khangar, Mohd. Arif, Shakil Ahmad Shamshul Haque, Mohan Keshav Bobade, Sunil Manikrao Ingole, Ramesh Ramaji Belsare, Satish Haribhau Pusatkar, Kailash Laxmanrao Chikate, and Ravindra Kawdu Chimote. The respondents in that petition include the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary of Higher and Technical Education, the Director of Higher Education, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, and the Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University through its Registrar, along with many individual respondents whose designations indicate they are employees in various sections and departments of the same university. In Writ Petition No. 616 of 2022, the petitioners are five individuals: Dhiraj Arunrao Pathak, Prakash Umrao Shende, Govind Purushottam Akotkar, Smt. Indira Laxman Aglave, and Ravi Manikrao Rohane. The respondents in this petition include the same State and university authorities and numerous individual respondents employed in different departments of the university. The text notes that an amendment was made as per Court order dated 06.10.2023. The citation for the judgment appears to be 2025:BHC-NAG:8410-DB, indicating a 2025 decision. However, the provided excerpt contains no statement of facts, issues, arguments, legal provisions, ratio decidendi, or final decision. Therefore, the substantive content of the judgment cannot be summarized or analyzed from this text. All substantive fields remain not mentioned or unavailable.

Issue of Consideration

WRIT PETITION NO S . 313 AND 616 OF 20 22

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (08) 91

WRIT PETITION NOS. 313 AND 616 OF 2022

2025:BHC-NAG:8410-DB

Prashant R. Vaidya; Sunil Krushnarao Ingle; Anil Anandrao Khangar; Mohd. Arif s/o Mohd. Abdul Khatique; Shakil Ahmad Shamshul Haque; Mohan Keshav Bobade; Sunil Manikrao Ingole; Ramesh Ramaji Belsare; Satish Haribhau Pusatkar; Kailash Laxmanrao Chikate; Ravindra Kawdu Chimote; Dhiraj Arunrao Pathak; Prakash Umrao Shende; Govind Purushottam Akotkar; Smt. Indira Laxman Aglave; Ravi Manikrao Rohane

State of Maharashtra through Secretary Higher and Technical Education; Director Higher Education, Government of Maharashtra, Pune; Joint Director Higher Education, Nagpur Division; Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University through Registrar; and other respondents as named in the petitions

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions before the High Court relating to service matters involving employees and the Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and State authorities, as indicated by party descriptions.

Previous Decisions

Not mentioned (only an amendment order dated 06.10.2023 is noted)

Judgment Excerpts

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NOS. 313 AND 616 OF 2022 Amendment as per the Court order dated 06.10.2023.

Procedural History

Not mentioned, except that an amendment was made as per Court order dated 06.10.2023.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Adjudicated Two Writ Petitions Concerning University Employee Service Matters. Petitions Involve Multiple Employees as Petitioners and State/University Authorities as Respondents, with Amendment Ordere...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Sets Aside Insolvency Notice Against Partners Not Impleaded in Suit — Leave Under Order 21 Rule 50(2) CPC Required. Insolvency Notice Against Alleged Partners Without Prior Leave Under Order 21 Rule 50(2) CPC is Invalid as It Is a...