AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7689 OF 2007 Shri Rashesh Krishnakant Patel & Ors. ) ... Petitioners Vs. Walchand College of Engineering, Vishram Bag, Sangli, & Ors. ) ) ... Respondents Mr. M.M. Vashi i/b Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for the petitioners. Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, senior advocate with Mr. G.S. Godbole and Smt. Surve i/b Little & Co. for the respondent 1-college. Mr. R.G. Ketkar for Shivaji University. Mr. Rodrigues for University Grants Commission. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT RESERVED : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 10TH MARCH, 2008. JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the AJN 2 Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondents to act upon and follow the studies, curriculum and syllabi in the same modes, manners and methods as applicable to an autonomous institution and to direct the respondents to hold and conduct the examinations in the same modes, manners and methods as applicable to an autonomous institution. 2. The petitioners are students, who have secured admission to the first year of respective engineering courses in respondent 1- college. Some of the petitioners/students are minors and, therefore, they are represented by their parents. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have secured admission in respondent 1-college i.e. Walchand College of Engineering on their own merit for the respective courses in the engineering stream. Their grievance is that in spite of the fact that respondent 1-college has been granted and recognized as an autonomous institution, respondent 1-college is not following the studies, curriculum and syllabi in the same modes, manners and methods as applicable to the autonomous institutions. It is contended that respondent 1-college had asked the students to AJN 3 make applications for regular examinations at semester level to be conducted as per norms of respondent 3 i.e. Shivaji University, Kolhapur. According to the petitioners, they opted for the choice of respondent 1-college since respondent 1-college had mentioned in its brochure that it was recognized as an autonomous institution. Even respondent 5 i.e. the State of Maharashtra has also recognized respondent 1-college as an autonomous institution. It is contended that the syllabi, curriculum, status as well as modes, manners and methods of teaching in an autonomous institution as mentioned in the brochure are quite different from those of the regular institution not having status of autonomous institution. The method of examination is also different. It is contended that though the degree certificate is always issued by the concerned University, the degree which would be secured by the students studying in an autonomous institution would not be B.E. degree, but it would be B.Tech degree. The petitioners contend that the autonomous institution has a higher status than the other regular institutions and, therefore, it is in the interest of the petitioners and other students that respondent 1-college acts upon and follows the same modes, manners and methods in respect of its studies, syllabi, curriculum and examinations, which are applicable to the AJN 4 autonomous institution. 4. It appears that the petitioners have made applications praying that they may be allowed to appear for the examinations, which are conducted for the regular institutions other than autonomous institutions. The applications were made because respondent 1 college had asked them to make such applications. The petitioners contend that merely by making such applications, they would not be dis-entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the present petition. The said applications were made only out of abundant caution. 5. The petitioners point out that many of the petitioners have the opportunity to take admission to colleges at Pune or Bombay. However, only because respondent 1-college was stated to be an autonomous institution that they took admission in it. Several students from remote places have also taken admission in respondent 1-college. The petitioners contend that if the reliefs prayed for in this petition are not granted, great prejudice will be caused to them. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioners have sought the abovementioned directions. AJN 5 6. We have heard Mr. Vashi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent 1-college, Mr. Ketkar, learned counsel appearing for the Shivaji University, Mr. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission and Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Associate Advocate General appearing for the State. Mr. Vashi, learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the contentions raised in the petition. 7. In the companion writ petition being Writ Petition No.1443 of 2007, we have already dealt with the issue of grant of autonomy to respondent 1-college. We appreciate the possible hardship which is likely to be caused to the petitioners. In Writ Petition No.1443 of 2007, we have already declared that autonomous status is granted to respondent 1-college from 2007. We have given certain directions while disposing of that writ petition. In our opinion, in view of the fact that autonomous status has been declared to have been granted to respondent 1-college from 2007, uncertainty in that behalf has been removed. We have left the change of nomenclature of degrees to the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, “the AICTE”) that being an expert body. In the AJN 6 circumstances, the petitioners will have to abide by the decision taken by AICTE. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. At this stage, Mr. Ketkar, learned counsel for the Shivaji University seeks stay of our judgment to the extent it declares grant of autonomous status to respondent 1-college from 2007. In the companion writ petition being Writ Petition No.1443 of 2007, we have rejected the same prayer. For the same reasons, prayer for stay is rejected in this petition also. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]