Bombay High Court
Bhimrao Sadhu Padwalkar vs Santosh Appa Yedage And Others on 15 May, 2026
39-WP-2057-2026 (C)=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
UDAY
Vijay Prakash Patil and Ors. ... Petitioners
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP Versus
JAGTAP Date:
2026.05.16
13:04:42
+0530 State Of Maharashtra, Secretary, Higher And ... Respondents
Technical Education, and Ors.
.............
Mr. Kalpesh Patil a/w, Aditya Patil, Kiran Kamble and Suryakant J. More
for the Petitioners.
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Mr. Rahul Patil for Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent - State.
.............
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 15th MAY, 2026.
(VACATION COURT)
P. C. :
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners herein are the students prosecuting their engineering degree. The petitioner Nos.1 to 11 are presently studying in respondent No.2 - Institute and petitioner Nos. 12 and 13 are prosecuting their studies in respondent No.3 - Engineering College. It is the case of the petitioners that in the Academic Session 2023-24, they have taken admission in first year of engineering degree course. At that time, both the colleges were affiliated to the respondent No.4 - Shivaji University.
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 00:37:28 :::
39-WP-2057-2026 (C)=.doc
The petitioners, in the Academic Session 2023-24, due to certain academic deficiencies were declared, 'year down' and, therefore, they appeared for Semester I and II examination in the Academic Session 2024-25. The petitioners in the examination were granted benefit of Allow to Keep Terms (ATKET) and permitted to move the next semester in accordance with Rules.
3. In the Academic Session 2024-25, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were conferred autonomous status by the competent Authority. The petitioners who have given the benefit of ATKT and moved to the next semester were admitted in the second year in August 2024-25 with the respondent No.3 - College and Institute, which received status of autonomous institute. The petitioners also state that at the time of admission, there were no communication about the status of their admission as per the Rules, rather the requisite fees for autonomous course were accepted by the respective colleges without objection. Accordingly, the petitioners prosecuted their second year in the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - College. Not only this, they have applied for examination for Semester III examination.
4. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners specifically came with the case that during Semester III examination, they have cleared all backlog / Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 00:37:28 ::: 39-WP-2057-2026 (C)=.doc ATKT subjects and also cleared Semester III subjects. Consequent thereupon, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 initiated necessary correspondence with the respondent No.4 - University seeking regularization and approval to the petitioners' admission and transfer.
5. In response to the communication of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respondent No.4 by its communication dated 9 th April 2026 rejected the proposal for transfer by relying on Clause 11.2.1 of National Education Policy, 2020. As such, the petitioners constrained to approach before this Court by way of present petition seeking thereby direction against the respondent No.4 - University to approve and regularize their admission from non-autonomous patter to the autonomous pattern in second year engineering with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - Colleges.
6. The petitioners pointed out that the examination of the next semester is likely to be started and, therefore, by way of interim relief they may be permitted to appear in the examination and continue their education.
7. In response, the respondent No.4 - University has made submission that as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are declared as autonomous body, they are not now affiliated with the respondent No.4 - University and, therefore, the procedure incorporated in Clause 11.2 of the Regulations Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 00:37:28 ::: 39-WP-2057-2026 (C)=.doc Governing the Credit System with Multiple Entry and Multiple Exit Options is applicable in the matter. According to the respondent No.4 - University, the petitioners did not pass all the subjects of previous semesters and, therefore, they cannot be granted permission as prayed iin the matter.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 - University has pointed out from the communication dated 9th April 2026 that those students who had been passed in the Academic Session 2023-24, they have granted permission but only those students who could not pass the previous semesters, those students are restricted from transfer as per the National Education Policy, 2020.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the month of October 2025, the petitioners have passed all the semesters and there is no backlog to their credit. As such, according to the petitioners, though this document is not placed on record but considering their statement, made in the petition that they have cleared all the backlog of all the semesters, they are entitled for the permission as prayed in the petition.
10. In the background of this factual aspect and by considering the statement made by the petitioners that they have cleared all the subjects Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 00:37:28 ::: 39-WP-2057-2026 (C)=.doc of all previous semesters, in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled for interim relief in the matter.
11. In view of the above, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), subject to production of statement of marks / mark- sheets to the competent Authority showing that they have cleared all the subjects of all previous semesters.
12. List the matter on 15th June 2026.
13. It is made clear that this order is passed only in respect of the petitioners, who have pointed out that Clause 11.2 of the Regulations Governing the Credit System with Multiple Entry and Multiple Exit Options is not applicable to them. Hence, this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ]
Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 00:37:28 :::