Saurabh Deepankar Telgote vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10416 Bom

                                                           33wp2967.2020(j).odt
                                            1/5



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2967 OF 2020

  Mr. Saurabh Deepankar Telgote,
  Aged 31 years, Occ. Student,
  R/o. Kanheri Gawali, Balapur,
  Tq. Balapur, District- Akola.                          .... PETITIONER

                                 // VERSUS //
  1. State of Maharashtra
  Through its Secretary,
  Directorate of Higher Education,
  Pune-411 001.

  2. The University of Mumbai,
  Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal Road,
  Kolivery Village, Vidya Nagri, Kalina,
  Santacruz East, Mumbai,
  Maharashtra-400 098.

  3. The Principal,
  Kishinchand Chellaram College,
  Mumbai, 12, Dinshawaccha Road,
  Church gate, Mumbai-400 020.                        .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. Saurabh D. Telgote, Petitioner-in person.
  Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl.GP for respondent No.1
  Mr. R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent No.3
  ________________________________________________________________

                               CORAM :  SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                        ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 05.08.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

33wp2967.2020(j).odt

2. Petitioner is undergoing a LL.B course at Akola College.

The petitioner is desirous of seeking transfer of his admission to

respondent No.3-college, affiliated to respondent No.2-University.

Accordingly, the petitioner has made his application for transfer to

respondent No.3-college on 14.09.2020. The application was made

to the respondent No.1. As per the procedure, respondent No.1

sought vacancy position from respondent No.3-college and

respondent No.3-college by its communication, dated 22.09.2020

informed the respondent No.1 that the vacancy position for third

year course was 'zero'. Since no vacancy was available, respondent

No.1 rejected the application of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner - in person submits that factually the reply

of respondent No.3 is incorrect. He invites our attention to the

vacancy position declared by respondent no.3 as of 17.09.2019

(page 31). He also submits that vacancy position for the year 2019-

20 for the third year course was 2 and as per existing rules, these

vacancies could have been filled up only through transfers approved

by respondent No.1 and since no such transfers were approved and

notified by respondent No.1, these vacancies were also required to

be carried forward to the next year, which is the year of 2020-21,

for which academic year, the petitioner has sought transfer of his

admission. Therefore, according to him, the rejection of application

33wp2967.2020(j).odt

of the petitioner by respondent no.1 on the basis of incorrect

information supplied by respondent No.3, is illegal.

4. Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Addl. Government Pleader and

Shri Bhangde, learned counsel respectively appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 3, point out that there is no such rule, which

lays down that the only way of filling up vacancy arising in a

particular academic year is of allowing of transfer applications and

that such vacancies can also be filled up by giving admission to the

students, who have failed to qualify for the next year. In support,

both of them invite our attention to the statement of vacancy

position for academic year 2020-21 for third year LL.B course,

issued by respondent No.3, which is at Page 78.

5. On going through the statement of vacancy positions

dated 17.09.2019 for the year 2019-20 (page 31) and also the

statement of vacancy position for the year 2020-21 (Page 78), we

find that the petitioner- in person is incorrect in his submission and

that there is great substance in the submissions made on behalf of

respondent No.1 and respondent No.3. Both these statements, one

relied upon by the petitioner and other relied upon by the

respondents, do sufficiently show that grant of applications seeking

transfer is not the only way of filling up the vacant seats in a

particular academic year. The statement dated 17.09.2019 (page

33wp2967.2020(j).odt

31) relied upon by the petitioner-in person clearly shows that there

is a column of students under the nomenclature "Students in

pipeline (Backlog passed students)" and under this column, the

backlog of students waiting for their admissions to T.Y. LL.B course

was 21 and against this backlog, the net available vacancies were

only 2. The statement dated 22.09.2020 (page 78) relied upon by

the respondents shows that the number of "Students in pipeline

(Backlog passed students)" for T.Y. LL.B course was 13 and against

this backlog of students, no vacancies were available. So, in the

academic year 2019-20, out of 21 students waiting for their

admissions to T.Y. LL.B course, only 2 students could have been

accommodated and whereas, for the academic year 2020-21, out of

13 students waiting for their admissions to T.Y. LL.B course, none

could be accommodated, there being no vacancy available. If this

was the position of the students waiting for their admissions to T.Y

LL.B course on account of their failure to qualify for the next year,

the respondent No.3 or for that matter even respondent No.1 had

no scope for allowing and granting application of the petitioner,

seeking his transfer to respondent No.3-college and therefore, we

do not think that any factual or legal error has been committed by

respondent No.1 in rejecting such an application filed by the

petitioner.

33wp2967.2020(j).odt

6. Apart from the merits of the matter, we find that even on

the aspect of jurisdiction of this Court, it is doubtful if this petition

would be maintainable before this Court, as the grievance of the

petitioner has arisen on account of certain action taken by the

authorities, falling within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at

Bombay and which had its effect confined to territorial jurisdiction

of Principal Seat at Bombay. Then the petitioner had filed a similar

petition before the Principal Seat (Page 48), which was Writ Petition

(Stamp) No.27987 of 2019. The only difference between that

petition and the present petition is that this petition seeks transfer

of admission to third year LL.B course and Bombay petition had

sought transfer of admission of the petitioner to second year LL.B

course. The Bombay petition, however, was permitted to be

withdrawn by the Division Bench at Bombay and this is evident

from copy of the order dated 07.11.2019 filed on record of the

petition by the petitioner.

7. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.

8. Rule is discharged.

9. All civil applications, pending in this petition, are also

disposed of accordingly.

                       JUDGE                                 JUDGE
nd.thawre