[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Amarsen Baburao Babar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: R. I. Chagla
Bench: R. I. Chagla
Digitally signed
by MULEY
MULEY SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO
PRAVINRAO Date: 1 907-WP-4586-2026.doc
2026.04.09
18:45:39 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4462 OF 2026
Minakshi Sayaji Nirbhavane ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4342 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4586 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4592 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4593 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4447 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4646 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10457 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10459 OF 2026
-----------------
Mr Satyajeet P. Dighe a/w Mr Abhijeet Khade for Petitioner in
WP/4586/2026.
Mr Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Laxman Deshmukh a/w Mr
Nilesh Desai for Petitioners in WP/4592/2026 a/w WP/4593/2026.
Mr Saurabh Butala i/b Ms Kalpana Chate a/w Mr Govind Munde, Mr Vinod
Kendre, Mr Bharat Shinde, Mr Parthraj Ware i/b Chate and Associates for
Petitioners in WP/4447/2026.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Sumit Kate a/w Mr Jenish
Jain for Petitioners in WP/4342/2026 & WP/4462/2026,
WPST/10457/2026, WPST/10459/2026 and WPST/10514/2026.
Mr Ajit J Kenjale a/w Mr Sai Rajendra Kadam for Petitioner in
WP/4646/2026.
Mr S H Kankal, AGP for Respondents- State in WP/4592/2026,
WP/4447/2026, WP/4342/2026, WP/4462/2026, WP/4646/2026,
WPST/10457/2026, WPST/10459/2026 and WPST/10514/2026.
Ms Priyanka B Chavan, AGP for Respondents - State in WP/4593/2026.
-----------------
Shubham 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 00:54:31 :::
2 907-WP-4586-2026.doc
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED : 09 APRIL, 2026
P.C.:-
1. This is a common order passed in the above captioned Petitions.
2. These Petitions have been moved on the ground of urgency in view of
the ad interim relief which has been sought namely to allow the Petitioners
to apply for the examination for post of Additional Public Prosecutors, for
the State of Maharashtra as per the Advertisement No.006/2026 issued on
18 March 2026 on such terms and conditions which this Court may deem fit
and proper.
3. These Petitions have impugned the Maharashtra Additional Public
Prosecutors, Group A, Recruitment Rules, 1997 wherein there is a cut off
age limit of 36 years as revised to 38 years for applying for the post of
Additional Public Prosecutor, Group A.
4. Mr. Warunjikar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners
in Writ Petition No.4462 of 2026 has referred to the Advertisement wherein
such cut off age has been referred. He has submitted that in prior
proceedings viz. Writ Petition No.5005 of 1999 and Civil Applications filed
therein which had come up before this Court (Aurangabad Bench) where a
judgment came to be passed on 25 July 2017. He has particularly referred
to the operative part of the said judgment and order namely clause (III)
wherein this Court had considered the possibility that more number of
3 907-WP-4586-2026.doc
Additional Public Prosecutors are appointed on contract basis than required
and considering the difficulties which the State Government may face, 50%
posts of Additional Public Prosecutors which are to be created in districts as
per the Rules of 1995. This Court had kept it open to the State Government
to make assessment about the requirement of the Additional Public
Prosecutors for each district as on the date of the decision. The State
Government was directed to appoint the Additional Public Prosecutors of
the quota of promotion on the basis of posts made available in the year
1997 and that process be completed within three months.
5. Mr. Warunjikar also referred to the Special Leave to Appeal No.24807
of 2017 which had been filed by the State of Maharashtra from the said
judgment and order dated 25 July 2017. The Supreme Court whilst
dismissing the Special Leave Petition had extended the time to comply with
the impugned judgment and order passed by this Court (Aurangabad
Bench) by period of 6 months from the date of the Supreme Court's order
viz. 3 December 2019.
6. Mr. Warunjikar has submitted that inspite of the Supreme Court
order, there was no attempt made by the State Government to appoint the
Additional Public Prosecutors and/or complete the process for such
appointment within the stipulated time period of 6 months. He has referred
to a statement showing requisition made by the State Government to the
MPSC which was on 11 February 2025. The impugned advertisement was
4 907-WP-4586-2026.doc
issued on 18 March 2026. He has submitted that in view of this delay, the
Petitioners have exceeded the cut off age limit of 38 years and that this is
solely on account of the Respondent-State not appointing the Additional
Public Prosecutors within the stipulated time limit.
7. Mr. Warunjikar along with Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4592 of 2026 and 4593 of
2026, the latter Petition filed by the Special Assistant Public Prosecutors
who are currently working on contract basis have sought for ad interim
relief. This being directing the Respondents to accept the application of the
Petitioners for examination as per the Advertisement No.006/2026 issued
on 18 March 2026.
8. Mr. Kankal, learned Addl.GP for Respondent-State has vehemently
opposed grant of any ad interim relief on the ground that this would be a
modification of the Rules namely Maharashtra Additional Public
Prosecutors, Group A, Recruitment Rules, 1997 which set out the cut off age
limit in this regard. He has referred to previous Writ Petition No.2578 of
2026 filed before this Court (Nagpur Bench) wherein similar prayers had
been made and the Petitioners had withdrawn the Petition with liberty to
approach Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Nagpur by filing
Original Application and raising these grievances.
9. Having considered the submissions, we have perused the prior
judgment and order passed by this Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 25
5 907-WP-4586-2026.doc
July 2017 as well as the Special Leave Petition referred therefrom by the
Respondent-State in which order dated 3 December 2019 came to be passed
by the Supreme Court. It appears from these orders that though the
Respondent-State had been directed to appoint Additional Public
Prosecutors and complete the process within the stipulated period namely 6
months as directed by the Supreme Court in the order dated 3 December
2019, the requisition which had been forwarded by the Respondent-State to
the MPSC was on 11 February 2025 and impugned advertisement was
issued only on 18 March 2026.
10. The Petitioners have, in the meantime, exceeded the cut off age limit
prima facie, in view of the delay in appointment of the Additional Public
Prosecutors by the Respondent-State. Although the Maharashtra Additional
Public Prosecutors, Group A, Recruitment Rules, 1997 has prescribed cut off
age as 36 years as amended to 38 years, we are of the prima facie opinion
that the Petitioners should not be made to suffer on account of delay on the
part of the Respondent-State in appointment of the Additional Public
Prosecutors.
11. As and by way of ad interim relief and by making it clear that the ad
interim order passed in these proceedings shall be subject to the outcome of
the present Petitions and/or further orders to be passed therein and that the
Petitioners shall not claim any equities by virtue of this order, we direct the
Respondents to accept the Applications of the Petitioners made by 5.00 p.m.
6 907-WP-4586-2026.doc
on 17 April 2026 for the examination as per the Advertisement
No.006/2026 issued on 18 March 2026.
12. Mr. Pakale has referred to the clause 12.2.6 in the advertisement
wherein the experience certificate of the Petitioners who have been working
as Special Assistant Public Prosecutors on contractual basis, is required to
be uploaded by the Petitioners along with the Application for the
examination as per the said advertisement. He has submitted that the
experience certificate is not being issued to the Petitioners by the competent
authority.
13. We have perused the said clause. It appears that the Application for
experience certificate is required to be made by the Petitioners to the
competent authority and upon such application being made, the competent
authority shall decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with
law.
14. The Respondents shall file their affidavit-in-reply to the Writ Petitions
on or before 24 April 2026. The Petitioners are at liberty to file affidavit in
rejoinder thereto on or before 30 April 2026. We clarify that this order is
restricted only to the Petitioners who are before this Court.
15. Stand over to 5 May 2026.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
