DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR THR ITS REGISTRAR v. NITIN NARHARI ADHAPURE AND ANOTHER
CA/7568/2026 · 2026-07-31
Shri Abasaheb D Shinde, Shri N B Suryawanshi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1588 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1588 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 66.CA.7568.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7568 OF 2026 IN WP/6405/2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6405 OF 2026 DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY CHH.
SAMBHAJINAGAR THR ITS REGISTRAR VERSUS NITIN NARHARI ADHAPURE AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sambhaji Subhashrao Tope AGP for Respondents: Mr. N.S. Tekale Advocate for Petitioner in WP: Mr. R.A. Joshi ...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 31.07.2026 PER COURT:
1. By this application, the applicant – original respondent No.2 seeks modification of the ad-interim order dated 25.06.2026 by which, this Court directed the respondent – University to hold the interview of the petitioner on 29.06.2026 for the post of Professor in Environmental Science and on 30.06.2026 for the post of Professor in Botany. However, the result of the interview was directed to be kept separately, and the appointments on both the said posts were not to be finalized until further orders. 2026:BHC-AUG:33598-DB
2 66.CA.7568.26.odt
2. The learned advocate for the applicant original-respondent No.2 submits that the interviews are held and the results are yet not declared. Since the entire selection process is held up, the University may be permitted to declare the result of the interview. Since learned advocate for the applicant has assured that the petitioner’s case would be considered on merits while declaring the result, the application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause ‘B’ which reads as follows :
“B. This Hon’ble Court may kindly, vacate, alter, or modify the ad- interim order dated 25.06.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.6405 of 2026 to the extent that it restrains the Applicant University from finalizing the selection and appointment process.”
3. As the Civil Application is allowed, thereby, modifying the ad-interim order passed by this Court, writ petition also stands
disposed of as nothing survives in the same.
4. In case the petitioner has any grievance about the selection or select list, he may avail the appropriate remedy as available under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
5. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) habeeb/