Dr. Vilas Vasudeo Deotare vs All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

¶1

1 33-WP-2461-25.doc

¶2

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶3

Digitally signed by BHARATDASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2025.08.18 10:53:40 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2461 OF 2025

¶6

Dr. Vilas Vasudeo Deotare ….Petitioner Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Others ….Respondents

¶7

Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Helekar, Advocate for the respondent no.1-AICITE. Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for the State-respondent no.3.

¶8

Mr. Rajendra Anbhule a/w Ms. Nisha Ahire, Ms. Pooja Pall, Mr. Sushil Lonkar, Advocates for the respondent no.5.

¶9

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 11^th August 2025

¶11

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶12

Mr. Digvijay Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that an affidavit regarding service of notice upon the respondent no.8–Sinhgad Technical Education Society has been filed on 4^th March, 2025.

¶13

The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

¶14

“a) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, against the respondent college by directing the appropriate authorities to take action against the respondent college under the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987, the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2015, and the Fees Regulation Act, 2015, including the withdrawal of its approval and affiliation.

¶15

b) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, against the respondent college by directing the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) to cancel the accreditation of the respondent college for its failure to comply with the norms and regulations prescribed by the relevant college-controlling authorities.

¶16

c) Be pleased Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents, to Immediately disburse the pending salary as particularly set out in Exhibit E which is computed to the tune of Rs. 92,24,563.24/- dues with interest of 8%

B.D.Pandit-SPS

1/3

2 33-WP-2461-25.doc

per annum;

d) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any order or direction directing the Respondents hereinto apply the norms of 6th and 7h Pay commission forthwith and direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 College to pay the arrears of payment along with the interest.

¶22

e) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any order or direction directing the Respondents hereinto pay the amount of Gratuity and the Provident Fund along with the interest.

¶23

f) Be pleased to direct the competent authority to compute the total outstanding amount as arrears due to the petitioner by the Respondent College.

¶24

g) Pending the hearing of this petition direct the Respondent College to deposit the amount of the Rs.62,32,813/- in the Court as more particularly set out in Exhibit E.

¶25

h) Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c), (d), (e) and (g);

¶26

i) Award costs of this petition to the Petitioners in the interest of Justice;

¶27

j) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision rendered in Writ Petition No.6765 of 2018 titled “Suman Sachin Jain & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.” and submits that the petitioner may be permitted to avail benefits under the directions issued by this Court in “Suman Sachin Jain”. However, Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5–Savitribai Phule Pune University and the learned State counsel have raised serious objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition.

¶29

The All India Council of Technical Education (for short “AICTE”) has filed its reply affidavit stating that under Notification dated 22^nd March 2021 a Grievance Redressal Committee (for short “GRC”) is required to be put in place by all Technical Institutions to address the grievances of faculty/staff members including service matters at the Institution level itself. In this affidavit, AICTE has pleaded that this is mandatory for all Technical Institutions to constitute a grievance redressal system and the said stipulation

B.D.Pandit-SPS

2/3

3 33-WP-2461-25.doc

was made part of the Approval Process, 2021.

¶34

The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the GRC is not constituted by the Sinhgad Technical Education Society and, therefore, he is compelled to approach this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents state that the petitioner could have approached the Grievances Committee constituted under section 79 of the Maharashtra Public University Act, 2016 which deals with all types of grievances except the grievance against the State Government including its officers, teachers and other employees of the Universities and the teachers and other employees in the affiliated Colleges and recognized Institutions other than those managed and maintained by the State Government, Central Government and the local authorities, which are not within the jurisdiction of the University and College Tribunal. Therefore, if there is a GRC constituted in the respondent no.7–Sinhgad Institute of Technology, the petitioner shall approach the said Committee with his grievances as narrated in this writ petition. However, if no such Committee is constituted or functional in respondent no.7- Sinhgad Institute of Technology, the petitioner may approach the Grievances Committee under section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.

¶35

Writ Petition No.2461 of 2025 is disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.

¶36

[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] [SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.]

¶37

B.D.Pandit-SPS

¶38

3/3

Dr. Vilas Vasudeo Deotare v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vilas Vasudeo Deotare v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Luvkesh Ganesh Jadhav vs the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Balkrishna Laxman Khopatkar vs the Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Shaikh Mohmmad Babul vs the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Kothari Wheels vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Gajanan Dwarkanath Nanche and Ors. vs the State of Maharasntra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Swapnil Pradip Puri and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of W. D and Ors.