[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
