Bombay High Court
DR. D. Y. PATIL PRATISHAN THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANRversusSUNIL SUBRAO PATIL AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the Committee’s orders as invalid and remanded the disputes to an Ombudsperson appointed under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
Summary
A batch of writ petitions filed by Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratisthan challenged the orders dated 8 June 2024 of the Grievance Redressal Committee of Savitribai Phule Pune University on the grounds that the Committee lacked a valid quorum and territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners relied on a recent Supreme Court decision (Soma Cyriac v. Chairman, Dr.D.Y.Patil Education Enterprise Charitable Trust) which had set aside similar Committee orders for procedural defects. The University argued that the amended Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, which creates an Ombudsperson, now governs grievance redressal. The Court held that the Committee’s orders were invalid, quashed them, and directed the University to appoint an Ombudsperson within two months. The matters were remanded to the yet‑to‑be‑appointed Ombudsperson for a fresh, time‑bound hearing, with the parties allowed to file written submissions.
Issues considered
- The Grievance Redressal Committee had a valid quorum and territorial jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
- Whether the amended Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 supersedes the Committee’s authority to decide grievances.
- Whether the writ petitions should be remanded to the Ombudsperson for fresh adjudication.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- grievance redressal
- quorum
- jurisdiction
- Ombudsperson
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- quashing order
- remand
- university
- writ petition
Judgment
1 of 6 903.WP.13638.2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13638 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Sachin Dhanraj Narjapure and another Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13673 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Anup Rambhau Chapale and another Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13674 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Swapnil Vijay Ghogardare Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13647 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Ravindra Sadashiv Lahane and another Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13643 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Sandeep Maruti Desai and another Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13646 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
MANISH
Digitally signed
by MANISH
SURESHRAO
versus
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.10.09
17:12:46 +0530
Deepak Sunil Patil and others Respondents
M.S.Thatte
2 of 6 903.WP.13638.2024.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13645 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Sunil Subrao Patil and another Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13664 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Vishwanath Hungund and another Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13675 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Navalkant Arvind Konda Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13648 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Santosh Kumar Bagawe and another Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13644 OF 2024
Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another Petitioner
versus
Nilesh Ramchandra Pawar and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Akshay Patil wit Mr.Dhaval Patil, Adv.Sherin Baby, Mr.Ganesh Inamdar i/by
K.Ashar & Co. for Petitioner in all petitions.
Mr.Vaibhav Kulkarni with Mr.Prathamesh Deshpande, Ms.Srushti More for
Respondent no.1.
Mr.Rajendra Anbhule for Respondent no.2 in all petitions.
_______
M.S.Thatte
3 of 6 903.WP.13638.2024.DOC
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 9th October 2026
P.C.
1. This batch of petitions raises a similar issue and impugns order dated 8 th
June 2024 passed by Grievance Redressal Committee of Savtribai Phule Pune
University (`University’) on the ground that the Grievance Redressal Committee
(`Committee’) which passed the impugned orders, did not have valid quorum and
also the territorial jurisdiction of the said Committee was called into question.
The beneficiaries in each of the petitions are different. However, the Petitioner is
common in all these petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the issue in the
present petitions would stand covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case
of Soma Cyriac Vs. Chairman, Dr.D.Y.Patil Education Enterprise Charitable Trust
and others1, wherein on similar facts the Supreme Court had set aside the order of
the Committee on the ground that the Committee which has been constituted
was not formed as per law and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the University has brought to the attention of this
Court the amended provisions of Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities
Act, 2016 (`the Act’) which stipulates appointment of a Ombudsperson who will be
selected from a panel of three retired Judges not below the rank of District Judge to
decide all types of grievances of teachers and other employees of the University,
affiliated and autonomous colleges and recognized institutions other than those
1Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.8512/2023, dtd.25-2-2025
M.S.Thatte
4 of 6 903.WP.13638.2024.DOC
managed and maintained by Central Government, State Government or a local
authority of the University and College Tribunal. The aforesaid amended provision
would be in effect from 13th August 2026. The amended provisions of Section 79
of the Act is reproduced below :
"79. Ombudsperson : (1) There shall be an Ombudsperson in each university to
deal with and decide all types of grievances of teachers and other employees of the
university, affiliated and autonomous colleges and recognized institutions, other
than those managed and maintained by the Central Government, State
Government or a local authority.
(2) The Ombudsperson shall not deal with and decide the grievances against the
State Government including its officials and the grievances which are within the
jurisdiction of the University and College Tribunal.
(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall recommend a panel of three retired Judges not
below the rank of the District Judge, for being appointed as the Ombudsperson,
for the consideration of the State Government.
(4) The State Government shall appoint one of the persons included in the panel
of three persons recommended by the Vice-Chancellor to be the Ombudsperson
for the university.
(5) The Ombudsperson shall be appointed for a term of three years from the date
of assuming office, and shall be eligible for reappointment for one more term:
Provided that, no Ombudsperson shall hold office after attaining the age of
seventy years.
(6) The State Government may remove the Ombudsperson from office, on
charges of proven misconduct or misbehaviour.
(7) No order of removal of Ombudsperson shall be made except after an inquiry
made in this regard by a person not below the rank of a retired judge of the High
Court, in which a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the
Ombudsperson.
(8) The Ombudsperson shall be entitled for remuneration and conveyance
charges, as may be determined by the university.
(9) The Ombudsperson shall decide grievances as mentioned in subsection (1),
after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
(10) The Ombudsman shall hear, settle and decide grievances as per the law, as far
as may be practicable, within three months, from the date of filing of the
compliant.
(11) The university shall establish a Cell headed by the officer of the university not
below the rank of the Assistant Registrar for providing administrative assistance to
the Ombudsperson.".
M.S.Thatte
5 of 6 903.WP.13638.2024.DOC
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the beneficiaries have submitted that the
orders passed by the earlier Committee, which are impugned in the present
petitions, in fact enures to the benefit of the Petitioner and beneficiaries stand to
lose the benefits as awarded by the Committee. He, however, has no objection,
considering the amended provisions of Section 79 of the Act, to remand the matter
to the Ombudsperson, who would have to hear the grievances of the teachers and
other employees and render decision in accordance with law. However, he submits
that hearing of the grievances be completed by the Ombudsperson in a time bound
manner.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also does not object to the remand
considering the amended provisions of Section 79 of the Act. Since the parties are
ad idem that the present petitions can be disposed of by remanding the grievances
in the said petitions for a fresh hearing of Ombudsperson, who will hear the
grievances of the teachers and other employees, this Court is of the view that these
petitions can be disposed of by remanding the said petitions.
6. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the office of
Ombudsperson is still vacant in the University and the University is in process of
appointing the Ombudsperson. This Court is of the view that the post of the
Ombudsperson be filled up immediately, considering that there are several
teachers and other employees who are affected on account of non redressal of their
grievances. The University shall take immediate steps to fill up the post of
Ombudsperson within two months from the date of this order. In view of the
aforesaid, following order is passed :
M.S.Thatte
6 of 6 903.WP.13638.2024.DOC
ORDER
(i) All petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the impugned
orders dated 8th June 2024 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee of
Savitribai Phule Pune University are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The Savitribai Phule Pune University is directed to appoint an
Ombudsperson as per Section 79 of the Act within two months from today;
(iii) These petitions are remanded back to the Ombudsperson, who shall
hear the parties and pass a reasoned order on each of the petitions within a period
of six months from the date of this order;
(iv) The parties are permitted to file their written submissions before the
Ombudsperson prior to the hearing;
(v) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open;
(vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matters and the Ombudsperson shall decide the disputes on merits
and in accordance with law;
(vii) All writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.