( 1 ) wp13655.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13655 OF 2017 Mohd. Mohiuddin Arsalan .. Petitioner S/o. Mohd. Mutharuddin, Age. 18 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Younus Colony, Near Motiwala Function Hall, Aurangabad. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Directorate of Technical Education, Mumbai. 2. Joint Director, Technical Education Department, Regional Office, Aurangabad. 3. Principal, Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad. 4. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Through its Secretary, Aurangabad. 5. The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University, Vidyavihar, Lonere, Raigad – 402 103, M.S. Mr. Quadri Syed Raheel h/f. Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 - State. Mr. V.S. Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. A.R. Borulkar, Advocate for respondent No.5. 2026:BHC-AUG:3888-DB ( 2 ) wp13655.17 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. DATE : 28.01.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : KISHORE C. SANT,J.] :- 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 02. The petitioner - a student of Engineering College has approached this Court praying for direction not to cancel his admission to respondent No. 3 - College, run by respondent No.4, for the course of Engineering and for quashing communicationS dated 14.11.2017, issued by respondent No.1 and communication dated 14.11.2017 issued by respondent No.2 pursuant to the communication of respondent No.1. It is case of the petitioner that he filled online form and sought admission to Engineering course. He was given admission, however, due to oversight he pressed button showing cancellation of admission on DTE website on 16.09.2017. It is his case that it was done inadvertently. The petitioner was missed from pursuing the course. His admission was made strictly on merit basis. He was never disqualified or held to be ineligible to take admission. It is only due to inadvertence further complications arose. 03. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 does not have serious objection to the petition. It is only stated that because of the pressing of cancellation option button, the admission was cancelled by ( 3 ) wp13655.17 respondent No.1 and they have only obeyed orders of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is a case that the petitioner himself has cancelled the admission. It was necessary to cancel the admission. Unless the admission is formally cancelled, no new candidate would have been admitted to the course. 04. Be it as it may, this Court finds that this Court by order dated 30.11.2017 had protected admission of the petitioner. As of now the course is completed by the petitioner successfully. Since now the course is already completed and as there is no complaint about ineligibility or disqualification of the petitioner, this Court finds no difficulty in accepting case of the petitioner. 05. This petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The University to issue necessary degree certificate, if not already issued. Rule made absolute accordingly. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Jan26/wp13655.17