Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 9 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratisthan and another; Respondents: multiple individuals (Sachin Dhanraj Narjapure, Anup Rambhau Chapale, Swapnil Vijay Ghogardare, Ravindra Sadashiv Lahane, Sandeep Maruti Desai, Deepak Sunil Patil, Sunil Subrao Patil, Vishwanath Hungund, Navalkant Arvind Konda, Nilesh Ramchandra Pawar, etc.).
  • The petitions challenge the order dated 8 June 2024 issued by the Grievance Redressal Committee of Savitribai Phule Pune University, alleging lack of valid quorum and improper territorial jurisdiction.
  • Counsel for the petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgment in Soma Cyriac Vs. Chairman, Dr.D.Y.Patil Education Enterprise Charitable Trust (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.8512/2023, dated 25‑2‑2025), where a similar committee order was set aside.
  • The University cited the amended provisions of Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, which introduce an Ombudsperson to decide all types of grievances of teachers and other employees, effective from 13 August 2026. The amendment outlines the selection, appointment, tenure, removal, and procedural aspects of the Ombudsperson.
  • Both parties agreed that the grievances should be heard by the Ombudsperson and that the matter could be disposed of by remanding the petitions for fresh hearing.
  • The Court noted that the Ombudsperson post is currently vacant and directed immediate appointment.

Final Outcome

1. All writ petitions are allowed; the impugned orders dated 8 June 2024 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee are quashed and set aside.

2. Savitribai Phule Pune University must appoint an Ombudsperson as per Section 79 of the Act within two months from the date of this order.

3. The petitions are remanded to the Ombudsperson, who shall hear the parties and pass a reasoned order on each petition within six months from the date of this order.

4. Parties may file written submissions before the Ombudsperson prior to the hearing.

5. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

6. The Court makes clear it has not expressed any opinion on the merits; the Ombudsperson shall decide the disputes on merits and in accordance with law.

7. No costs are awarded.

Topics: University Governance, Grievance Redressal