Judgment · Supreme Court · 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD947 WRIT PETITION NO.2630 OF 2026Suresh Devrao KangankarAge: 35 years, Occu.: Computer Operator,R/o. Apegaon, Post Akhatwade, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahilyanagar. .. PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The District Collector, Ahilyanagar.3.The Tahasildar, Shevgaon, District Ahilyanagar.4.The District Supply Officer, Ahilyanagar.5.Prashant Sangade, Tahsildar, Shevgaon.6.Smt. Mangal Pawar, Supply Officer, Shevgaon.7.Babasaheb Gadakh PadmakarAge: 46 years, Occu.: Computer OperatorR/o. Rakshi, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahilyanagar. .. Respondents...Mr. S. D. Madake h/f Ms. Dipali Dalve, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents/State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 11 MARCH 2026[1] 947-wp-2630-2026.odtORDER :.Present petition has been filed for reinstating the petitioner on thepost of Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator in Tahsil Office, Shevgaon, District Ahilyanagar with all consequential service benefits, back wages and seniority.2.Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. Learned AGP waivesnotice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. No necessity to issue notice to theother respondents.3.The petitioner submits that the petitioner is continuously servingsince 2016 in the Tahsil Office, Shevgaon, District Ahilyanagar in thecapacity as Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator on temporaryhonorarium basis. On 22.12.2023, Tahsildar, Shevgaon had issued aletter appointing two persons, including the present petitioner on anurgent and temporary basis for completing the work pertaining to theSupply Department. Petitioner says that he has discharged his dutiesefficiently. The consolidated amount of one time remuneration ofRs.24,000/- has been paid regularly to him. The petitioner also submitsthat a contractual appointment letter for the post of IT Office Assistantwith InfoTech International Limited was issued in favour of other staffmembers on 21.02.2025, however, the name of the present petitioner has[2] 947-wp-2630-2026.odtarbitrarily and deliberately excluded. In the place of petitioner, oneGadakh Babasaheb Padmakar was appointed, which the petitioner statesthat is arbitrary and unjust replacement. Therefore, he made severalapplications under the Right to Information Act to know the reason. On24.02.2025 around 1.50 p.m. when he was performing his official dutiesof routine work, he was summoned by the Tahsildar and some incidenttook place, which the petitioner has reported under the Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafterreferred to as the “Atrocities Act”). According to the petitioner, oneSmt. Mangal Pawar was terminated by order dated 12.08.2025, but thepetitioner was not afforded any statutory rehabilitation, protection, orcompensation under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. Now, he hasbeen orally terminated. Hence, he is before this Court.4.Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through thedocuments and submits that the termination of the petitioner is arbitraryand illegal. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Single Bench ofJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Feroz Ahmed Sheikh andothers Vs. Union Territory of J & K through Commissioner/Secretary/AdditionalChief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department and others, [2023 SCCOnLine J& K 1095] to show that the principles of natural justice arerequired to be observed in case of termination.[3] 947-wp-2630-2026.odt5.The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is thatthe petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence in the form of hisappointment since 2016. The first appointment order would have givenus the clue as to what is the nature of his appointment. What has beenproduced at Exhibit-‘A’ is the order by Tahsildar to his own establishmentdated 22.12.2023 thereby appointing two persons for effecting the dataentry in respect of Supply Department in the Computers for whichamount of Rs.24,000/- be paid to each of them by cheque. Even as perthe pleadings, the appointment of the petitioner was temporary and asData Entry Operator. It appears that the services of the petitioner weretaken for taking entry in the computers of the Tahsil office as required. Now, the petitioner has also not produced any documentary evidenceabout termination, but he says that he has been orally terminated. Thereis no question of reinstatement if the work that was to be carried out bythe petitioner has already been completed or the task has been fulfilled.In paragraph No.6 of the petition, the petitioner refers to contractualappointment letter dated 21.02.2025 for the post of IT Office Assistantwith InfoTech International Limited. Copy of this letter has also not beenproduced. We would insist on the wordings which have been stated inthe pleadings that the said letter “…Limited was issued in favour ofcertain other staff members, however, the name of the present petitioner[4] 947-wp-2630-2026.odtwas arbitrarily and deliberately excluded therefrom.” If the work waswith the Tahsil office, then the staff members in the Tahsil office couldnot have been asked to work, or be appointed on a contractual basis with,a private company. Under such circumstance, it appears that even thepetition has been drafted upon an incorrect information and not even byproducing all the documents that is right from the first appointment in2016. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, the decision ofHon’ble Single Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Courtin Feroz Ahmed Sheikh and others (Supra) will not be beneficial to thepetitioner. We do not find any merit in the petition. No case is made outfor exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.6.Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[5]