Bombay High Court
Neeta Vitthal Shelar vs Balak Mandir Sanstha And Ors on 25 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:36468
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 215 OF 2020
Neeta Vitthal Shelar .. Petitioner
Versus
Balak Mandir Sanstha & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Swaraj Sanjay Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent
Nos. 3 & 4
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 25, 2025
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Patel,
Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. None
appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite being served.
2. Present Writ Petition challenges the judgment & order dated
16.09.2019 passed by learned School Tribunal in Appeal No. 14 of
2017 filed by Petitioner.
3. Petitioner is a teacher. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are Educational
Institution / School where she was employed as Assistant Teacher /
Shikshan Sevak. Respondent No. 3 is the Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parisahd, Thane. Respondent No. 4 is State of
Maharashtra.
1 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
4. Admittedly Petitioner was appointed as teacher in the school in
the year 2010. She served as Assistant Teacher / Shikshan Sevak upto
22.09.2016 when her services were terminated by termination order
dated 22.09.2016 holding that she was working on ad-hoc basis /
temporary. She challenged her termination before School Tribunal by
filing Appeal No. 14/2017 which was dismissed by impugned
judgment dated 16.09.2019. Hence, the present Petition.
5. Admittedly Petitioner was appointed in Respondent - School by
appointment order dated 12.07.2010 w.e.f. 03.08.2010 to 19.09.2010
in Leave Vacancy of one Mr. Bhaskar Choudhary. Admittedly she was
qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher / Shikshan Sevak having
qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed. Appointment of Petitioner in Leave
Vacancy was done by following the prescribed procedure of selection.
Though her appointment order stated that she was appointed only
upto 19.09.2010, it is seen that her services were continued on the
post of Assistant Teacher even thereafter. Mr. Bhaskar Choudhary was
due to retire on 31.05.2013 and hence it was decided by the School
Management to fill up the vacant post created due to his
superannuation and Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and
was asked to continue as Assistant Teacher in the meanwhile until the
recruitment was finalized. On retirement of Mr. Bhaskar Choudhary,
full time approved post of Assistant Teacher fell vacant and
2 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
Respondent Management published advertisement on 04.12.2013 for
recruitment of teacher in that post. In the meanwhile, Petitioner
continued in the post of Assistant Teacher from the date on which she
was appointed against the Leave Vacancy. Petitioner also applied in
response to the published advertisement and appeared for interview
for the said post of teacher along with one Ms. Rakhi Gangurde. On
11.12.2013 Petitioner was issued fresh appointment order w.e.f.
11.12.2013 on the post of Assistant Teacher / Shikshak Sevak.
Admittedly Petitioner and her services were continued by the school
thereafter.
6. In January 2014 approval camp for Thane Zilla Parishad was
conducted pursuant to which Petitioner was expecting her
appointment as full time Shikshan Sevak by virtue of her appointment
order dated 11.12.2013 which would be approved in the camp but to
her dismay, she did not receive any information about her approval by
Respondent No. 3. Appointment order dated 11.12.2013 issued to the
Petitioner squarely stated that her appointment was w.e.f. 11.12.2013
to 10.12.2016 for 3 years (36 months). However, Ms. Rakhi Gangurde
who had appeared along with Petitioner for interview on 08.12.2013
was issued appointment letter dated 09.12.2013. According to
Petitioner, despite her appointment order dated 11.12.2013, she did
not receive any approval but after she filed RTI Application, in the
3 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
reply received, it was revealed that the School Management appointed
one teacher called Ms. Uma Shrigukar who was working part-time in
the Respondent School on the vacant post so created on
superannuation of Mr. Bhaskar Choudhary and Petitioner's name was
shown as part-time teacher on aided post and part-time teacher on
unaided post. According to Petitioner, the advertisement issued by the
School Management in December 2013 was for recruitment of two
full-time posts of Assistant Teachers pursuant to which Ms. Rakhi
Gangurde was issued appointment letter on 09.12.2013 whereas
Petitioner was issued appointment letter on 11.12.2013. Further
investigation by Petitioner seeking record of minutes of meeting of
Appointing Committee, School Committee and details of recruitment
process revealed that the Appointment Committee had held its
meeting on 08.12.2013 at 10.00 a.m., School Committee had held its
meeting on 08.12.2013 at 10.00 a.m. and the interviews were also
held on 08.12.2013 at 10.00 a.m. which prima facie showed that there
was manipulation on the face of record by Respondent School
management in the case of appointment of teachers pursuant to
Recruitment process held in December 2013.
7. Thereafter on 31.05.2014 another teacher in the School called
Mrs. Charu Vaidya attained superannuation and one post of Assistant
Teacher fell vacant. Respondent School management published fresh
4 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
advertisement calling for candidates to be appointed on the said post.
Being apprehensive Petitioner once again applied in response to the
said advertisement under protest and was appointed after following
the prescribed procedure of interview and all other formalities w.e.f.
01.06.2014 to 31.05.2017 as full-time Shikshan Sevak for a tenure of
3 years. Admittedly Petitioner has been paid honorarium fixed for
Shikshan Sevak which is depicted in the passbook of Petitioner w.e.f
01.06.2014. Appointment of Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak w.e.f.
01.06.2014 was approved by the concerned department for a period of
3 years as full-time Shikshan Sevak.
8. However Petitioner could complete her tenure, she was served
with termination letter dated 22.09.2016 terminating her services
w.e.f. 23.09.2016. Impugned letter referred to letter dated 10.06.2016
issued by the Director of Education which in turn referred to
Government Resolution (GR) dated 10.06.2016 wherein Government
resolved that if at any time before completion of 3 years services if a
Shikshan Sevak is likely to be declared surplus then such Shikshan
Sevak need not be declared surplus and his services be terminated.
Petitioner informed the Respondent School management that in view
of the said GR, services of Petitioner need not be terminated and her
name be placed in the list of surplus Shikshan Sevak. There are two
GRs in that regard dated 10.06.2016 and 27.06.2016 which were
5 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
referred to and relied upon by Petitioner. Despite Petitioner calling
upon Respondent School management to consider the terms of the
above GRs, the School management did not withdraw her termination
letter dated 22.09.2016. Petitioner therefore approached School
Tribunal to challenge the termination letter being violative of the
contents of GR dated 27.06.2016 and filed Appeal No. 14/2017.
9. During pendency of Appeal, Petitioner's name was duly added in
the surplus list of Shikshan Sevak as maintained by Respondent No. 3
in view of the guidelines and directions contained in GR dated
27.06.2016 for maintaining surplus list of Shikshan Sevaks and their
eventual absorption as and when vacancy arose. The addition of
Petitioner's name in surplus list was duly exhibited and placed before
the School Tribunal below Exh.3 by Petitioner wherein name of
Petitioner was included in the list of surplus Shikshan Sevaks at Sr. No.
79. Once this was the case, then prima facie on the basis of said
factual record, there was no reason for the Tribunal to decide
otherwise and uphold her termination on the ground that she was an
ad-hoc / temporary employee. Petitioner ought to have been given the
benefit of the Government Resolution, rather she was given the benefit
and it is seen that her name was placed on the surplus list.
10. Before the School tribunal, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 School
management filed their reply dated 01.11.2018 wherein they annexed
6 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
letter dated 01.10.2018 sent by Respondent School management to
Respondent No. 3 - Education Officer informing that services of
Petitioner were rendered surplus and therefore School management
called upon Respondent No.3 Education Officer to take further action.
Once again if this is the admitted position, then there was no reason
for the Tribunal to decide otherwise and accept the submissions of
School management that Petitioner was an ad-hoc employee.
11. Since the aforesaid action took place during pendency of
Appeal, Petitioner was allowed to amend the Memo of Appeal. Before
the Tribunal, Petitioner filed Application seeking direction to School
management to produce the minutes book and minutes of the board
relating to her appointment which were produced on record and it
revealed that they were not maintained properly, there were
discrepancies and overwriting on the face of record and minutes book
had several blank pages. Appeal filed by Petitioner was however
dismissed by School Tribunal resultantly leading to filing of the
present Petition.
12. Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for Petitioner would at the outset
submit that School Tribunal was not bereft of the material documents,
inter alia, relating to appointment of Petitioner since 2010. He would
submit that appointment letter dated 01.06.2014, approval letter
dated 05.01.2015, GR dated 27.06.2016, surplus list of teachers
7 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
prepared by Respondent No. 3 having name of Petitioner and all other
documentary evidence was placed before School Tribunal but it failed
to consider the same and rejected the Appeal of Petitioner against her
termination. He would submit that conclusion of School Tribunal that
Petitioner was working as ad-hoc / temporary basis in the facts of the
present case is completely misplaced and rather contrary to the
material evidence placed on record by Petitioner. He would submit
that conclusion arrived at by School Tribunal to hold appointment of
Petitioner on ad-hoc / temporary post is therefore factually incorrect.
He would submit that though Petitioner was appointed initially from
2010 and she continued to share the workload of full-time vacancy
and her services were approved as Shiskhan Sevak w.e.f. 11.12.2013,
said fact was not appreciated by School Tribunal and case of School
management that Petitioner was not appointed on full-time permanent
vacancy but on the post which was partially aided and partially
unaided was accepted by School Tribunal merely on the strength of
their written statement without any cogent or relevant evidence in
respect thereof. He would submit that in the year 2014, when fresh
advertisement was issued and Petitioner was appointed in the
selection process, she was issued a fresh appointment letter dated
01.06.2014. This was after following due process of law as
contemplated under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
8 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short "the said Act").
He would submit that Respondent No. 3 granted approval vide order
dated 05.01.2015. He would therefore submit that in the wake of
such prima facie admitted material evidence, termination of Petitioner
was contrary to status of Petitioner which she held as Assistant Teacher
in the School. He would submit that in the wake of such
overwhelming evidence, there is a basic fallacy on the part of School
Tribunal in holding that Petitioner was never appointed on permanent
post and she continued to work on temporary basis by completely
ignoring the appointment orders issued by School management and
approval granted by Respondent No. 3 pertaining to her appointment
on vacant post / regular post as Shikshan Sevak. He would submit
that it is only with an ulterior motive that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
School management manipulated the minutes of meeting to show that
Petitioner was appointed on a post which was partially aided and
partially unaided which fact was accepted by School Tribunal as gospel
truth holding against the Petitioner. He would submit that Petitioner
in the facts and circumstances of present case at the highest is entitled
to entitlement under GR dated 27.06.2016 but even that has been
denied to her as her name has been struck of from the list by
Respondent No. 3 on the intimation by the School management that
she was terminated in 2016.
9 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
12.1. He would submit that case of Petitioner further strengthens in
view of the additional affidavit in reply dated 31.07.2025 filed by
Respondent No. 3 - Education Officer. He would submit that it is
admitted by Education Officer in the additional affidavit in reply that
Respondent No. 2 by letter dated 01.10.2018 informed Respondent
No. 3 - Education Officer about two surplus Shikshan Sevak out of
which one Shikshan Sevak was already absorbed and second was the
Petitioner who was yet to be absorbed. He would submit that it is
further clarified by Education Officer that accordingly list of surplus
Shikshan Sevaks was prepared by Education Officer for District Thane
and said list was forwarded to Director of Education on 02.10.2018
and name of Petitioner was reflected at Sr. No. 3 for Thane District.
He would submit that it is ironical that despite the Petitioner being
terminated from service, Respondent School management addressed
letter dated 01.10.2018 to Respondent No. 3 - Education Officer. He
would submit that it is only because the challenge to the decision of
the School Tribunal was pending before this Court, Respondent No.3
on its own volition struck off the name of Petitioner from the list of
surplus teaches / Shikshan Sevaks in the year 2020. He would submit
that if name of Petitioner was required to be struck of, it was duty of
Respondent No. 3 - Education Officer to obtain leave of this Court and
Respondent No. 3 cannot rely upon an inadvertent omission on the
10 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
part of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 School management for not
communicating him about termination of Petitioner to him. He would
submit that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 School management in the
present case have not come before the Court with clean hands. He
would submit that even otherwise case of Petitioner is such that if she
was terminated, then her name ought to have been entered into the
list of surplus teachers which was in fact done but she was still denied
her entitlement. He would submit that termination of Petitioner
abruptly on22.09.2016 was with an ulterior motive in view of
manipulation carried out by Respondent Nos 1 and 2 School
management in depriving Petitioner of her legitimate right and
entitlement. He would therefore submit that the impugned judgment
passed by the School Tribunal be quashed and set aside.
13. PER CONTRA, Mr. Patel, learned Addl. GP along with Ms.
Gavhane, learned AGP appear on behalf of Respondent - State and the
Education Officer. Mr. Patel would submit that Respondent No. 3 filed
additional affidavit in reply dated 21.07.2025 pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court. He would submit that admittedly the
name of Petitioner was entered into the surplus list of Shiskhan Sevaks
in consonance with GR dated 27.06.2016. He would submit that
admittedly Petitioner completed 33 months of service and she not
having completed 36 months as Assistant Teacher would not entitle
11 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
her to permanency status in service as envisaged under Section 5(2A)
of the said Act and therefore benefit of declaration of surplus teacher
as prescribed under Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short "the Rules")
would not be applicable to the case of Petitioner if she was declared
surplus. He would submit that once that is the case and Petitioner was
terminated before completion of probation period of 36 months as
mandated by law, then provisions of Rule 25A would not be applicable
to case of Petitioner. He would however submit that in the year 2020,
list of surplus teachers was freshly prepared and name of Petitioner
was struck of because it was found that in 2018 at the instance of the
School management name of Petitioner was entered into surplus list
but the School management had failed to inform Respondent No. 3
that Petitioner's services were already dispensed with by termination
letter dated 22.09.2016. He would therefore submit that Petitioner's
name from the list of surplus teacher was struck off and she would not
be entitled to any benefit to claim permanency or declaration or seek
addition of her name as surplus Shiskhan Sevak in the list under Rule
25A of the said Rules prepared by Respondent No. 3 for Thane district.
He would fairly submit that as stated in the additional affidavit, unless
there is proper declaration regarding status of permanency of
Petitioner, it is prima facie seen that she has not completed 36 months
12 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
period of her probation as mandated by law and therefore she was not
entitled to claim permanency and declaration as surplus teacher. He
therefore persuades the Court to uphold the impugned judgment
passed by the School Tribunal.
14. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and with their able assistance perused the record of the case.
15. In the present case, on the basis of the facts which are alluded to
and referred herein above, it is prima facie seen that Petitioner has
been a clear victim of circumstances at the hands of the Management
of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - School Management. Further to add to
her woes Respondent No.3 - Education Officer has acted at the behest
of Management in depriving the Petitioner and legitimate right
entitlement. In the case of Petitioner, it is prima facie seen and it is an
admitted position that she was initially appointed by appointment
order dated 12.07.2010, but against leave vacancy. Thereafter record
shows that she continued to teach as Assistant Teacher without any
break until 2016. It is seen that she continued as Assistant Teacher /
Shikshan Sevak until on 11.12.2013 a fresh appointment order was
issued appointing her for a period of 3 years upto 10.12.2016. It is
however seen that before she could complete her tenure, she was
issued another appointment order dated 01.06.2014 appointing her
for a period of 3 years as full time Shikshan Sevak. Reason for issuing
13 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
the aforesaid twin appointment orders to Petitioner was due to her
continuous service as Assistant Teacher in the School and on the post
of Assistant Teacher falling vacant on superannuation of Mr. Bhaskar
Choudhary initially and Mrs. Charu Vaidya subsequently. It is seen that
in the above background services of Petitioner were abruptly
terminated by termination letter dated 22.09.2016.
16. The solace to the Petitioner in such a case namely if her services
are terminated prior to completion of her probation period is that in
that event she would have to be declared as surplus Teacher and her
name would have to be placed in the list of surplus Shikshan Sevaks
prepared / maintained by Respondent No.3 - Education Officer. There
are two Government Resolutions which govern this position which are
dated 10.06.2016 and 27.06.2016. Name of Petitioner was added to
the list of surplus Shikshan Sevaks adhearing to this position as
Petitioner had continuously served as Assistant Teacher since 2010. It
was not a case of Petitioner being appointed for the first time in 2014.
17. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances in the present
case, it is prima facie seen that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely School
Management has not come clean. They have also not appeared before
this Court having being served. It is seen that despite Petitioner having
continued as Teacher from 12.07.2010 initially in lieu vacancy
position, thereafter being appointed as part-time teacher on aided post
14 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
and part-time on unaided post and thereafter being appointed as full
time Shikshan Sevak for a tenure of 3 years and then her services
being terminated and she not been given benefit of Government
Resolutions, there is gross injustice meted out to her. It is also seen
that despite her name initially being added to the surplus list of the
Shikshan Sevak maintained by Respondent No.3, the same was struck
off at the behest of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - School Management
after they informed the Respondent No.3 that services of Petitioner
were terminated by them. In the first instance, termination of services
of the Petitioner by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - School Management in
the facts of the Petitioner's case is itself surreptitious and contrary to
all canons of justice.
18. The findings returned by School Tribunal that Petitioner was
never a permanent employee and was just an ad-hoc and temporary
employee of the School is on the face of record incorrect in the above
circumstances. The learned School Tribunal has failed to consider the
twin appointment orders dated 11.12.2013 and the subsequent
appointment order dated 01.06.2014 after retirement of Assistant
Teacher Mrs. Charu Vaidya in its proper perspective. It is seen that
during both the aforesaid tenures, Petitioner worked on full time basis
in the School, initially as she was appointed as a part-time Teacher on
the aided post and part-time on unaided post in the School and
15 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
subsequently on retirement of Mrs. Charu Vaidya as full time Shikshan
Sevak. It is also an admitted fact that Petitioner had been working as
Assistant Teacher right since 2010.
19. From the above, it is clearly seen that termination of the
Petitioner abruptly at the end of 33 months by School Management
was with the sole motive of denying the Petitioner her legitimate right
and entitlement as Assistant Teacher. Even otherwise had Petitioner
continued and completed 3 years of service (36 months as full time
Shikshan Sevak) with Respondent Nos.1 and 2, her appointment
would have to be confirmed. To avoid this confirmation, her services
were terminated. Exploitation of the Petitioner right from the date of
her first appointment order dated 12.07.2010 in the present case upto
her termination on 22.09.2016 is prima facie seen to be such that
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - School Management never wanted
Petitioner to complete her probation period at any point of time.
Despite Petitioner facing the aforesaid ignominy, all that she expected
from Authorities and School Management was to place her name in
the list of surplus Shikshan Sevaks as contemplated by the
Government Resolution covering her case. Even that right was denied
to her.
20. Once the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by
appointment letter dated 11.12.2013, it is clear that she was denied
16 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
the right of confirmation by the School Management by issuing the
termination letter in September 2016 (on completion of 33 months) so
that she would not complete 36 months and then would have to be
confirmed. Petitioner was never employed in the first place for the
first time on 11.12.2013. She continued as Assistant Teacher right
since 2010. Even her appointment in leave vacancy in 2010 was done
after following the selection procedure. It is seen that though she was
issued appointment letter dated 11.12.2013, it was later revealed that
another teacher Ms. Rakhi Gangurde was also issued appointment
letter on 09.12.2013.
21. Thus the School Management played a fraud on the Petitioner
by issuing her the appointment letter dated 11.12.2013. Thereafter on
31.05.2014, when there was a vacancy on retirement of Mrs. Charu
Vaidya, Petitioner was appointed in the retirement process by issuing
appointment letter dated 01.06.2014 for 3 years upto 31.05.2017. It
is seen from the record that her appointment was also approved by the
concerned Department for a period of 3 years on full time Shikshan
Sevak.
22. From the above facts and circumstances, it is seen that gross
injustice has been meted out to the Petitioner by the School
Management. Even otherwise, had her name been continued in the
list of surplus teacher, by now she would have been absorbed and
17 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
would not have any grievance. She was terminated on 12.09.2016.
Her Appeal was rejected on 16.09.2019 by the School Tribunal. Her
Writ Petition is decided today in 2025. It is clearly concluded that
Respondent - School Management with connivance of Respondent
No.3 - Education Officer exploited the service of Petitioner from 2010
initially against leave vacancy, later against part-time aided and
unaided post and thereafter as Shikshan Sevak, but denied her
legitimate right of getting confirmed and terminated her services
before she would complete her tenure of 36 months. Her appointment
as Shikshan Sevak was after completing in the recruitment and
selection process. She has put in seven years of uninterpreted services
with the School. In such circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by
the learned Tribunal that she is not entitled to any relief as she was a
temporary / ad-hoc employee cannot be countenanced. The
Respondent No.3 - Education Officer has also played his part of
initially giving her the benefit of the Government Circular and adding
her name on the surplus Teacher's list, but then because of pendency
of present Petition has struck off her name. In such facts, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and termination of Petitioner
cannot be upheld.
23. The above observations and findings impel me to quash and set
aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2019.
18 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
Resulstantly the Petition succeeds. Petition stands allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and the further directions given hereinunder.
24. In view of the above, justice will have to be done to the
Petitioner otherwise Petitioner will once again be at the mercy of the
Education Officer. Considering that Petitioner's name was already
added to the list of surplus Teacher maintained by the Respondent
No.3 - Education Officer, in the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, observations and findings, I direct Respondent No.3 -
Education Officer to add the name of the Petitioner at Sr. No.1 in the
surplus list maintained / prepared by Respondent No.3 - Education
Officer for District Thane and on the first available vacancy of
Assistant Teacher / Shikshan Sevak in any Educational Institution /
School, the Respondent No.3 - Education Officer shall ensure that the
Petitioner is appointed as Assistant Teacher / Shikshan Sevak against
that vacancy. Considering the ignominy suffered by the Petitioner, I
direct Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- which in
my opinion would be adequate compensation and solace to the
Petitioner for her sufferance in the manner in which Petitioner's
services were employed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - School
Management in the present facts and circumstances. Costs of
Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - School
Management to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from
19 of 20
CIVIL WP-215-2020.docx
today failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land
revenue from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the Collector, Thane District
and paid over to the Petitioner - Assistant Teacher / Shikshan Sevak.
25. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2025.08.25
20:52:10 +0530
20 of 20
