Bombay High Court
Santosh Ramkishan Wakade vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
4630.16wp
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.4630 OF 2016
Santosh s/o Ramkishan Wakade,
age .. years, occu. Nil,
r/o Dhoksal Tq. Badnapur,
Dist. Jalna. ... PETITIONER.
Versus
1. The State of Maharahstra,
through its Principal Secretary,
SchoolEducation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad,
Jalna. ... RESPONDENTS.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Jadhav Vivek U.
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr.S.P. Deshpande.
Advocate for R.No.2: Mr.Tope Sambhaji S.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
Dated: JULY 12, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SHINDE, J)
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent
of the parties, taken up for final hearing.
4630.16wp
2. This petition takes exception to the
communication dated 6th October, 2015 issued
by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Jalna (Primary Section) to the Head Master,
Zilla Parishad Primary School, Dhoksal,
Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that one of the reasons assigned by
the Education Officer to reject the proposal
is that the petitioner has left the school.
In support of his contention that though the
candidate has left the school, still the
Education Officer can consider the prayer for
change of date of birth or caste, he placed
reliance on the decision dated 4th September,
2014 in case of Mr.Manoj Shivappa Sakhare vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ
Petition No.7675 of 2014 with connected
petitions.
4630.16wp
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel
for respondent No.2, relying upon the
unreported judgment delivered on 8th October,
2012 by the Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.3266 of 2012 (Vilas s/o
Dattatraya Ransubhe Vs The State of
Maharashtra and others), submits that if the
petitioner is aggrieved, he has remedy to
approach the Deputy Director of Education.
5. We have considered the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner as also
the respondents. The fact that the proposal
was not submitted in Form No.3 as per Rule
26.4 of the Secondary School Code, is not in
dispute.
6. In that view of the matter, we quash and
set aside the impugned communication and
grant liberty to the petitioner to submit the
proposal in the appropriate form as mentioned
4630.16wp
above, to the Head Master of the concerned
School, as expeditiously as possible;
however, within two weeks from today. Upon
receiving such proposal, the concerned Head
Master to submit the same along with his
recommendation / remark to the Block
Education Officer, within three weeks
thereafter. The Block Education Officer,
after considering the said proposal, shall
forward it to the Education Officer. The
Education Officer concerned to take decision
on the said proposal, as expeditiously as
possible; however, within three weeks after
receipt of the said proposal, without raising
the ground that the petitioner has left the
school and therefore, request for change in
record cannot be considered. However, we
make it clear that it is for the respondent
No.2 to consider the proposal on its own
merits, after verifying the documents on
record. We have not expressed any opinion on
4630.16wp
merits of the matter.
7. The writ petition is disposed of on the
above terms. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. No order as to costs.
(V.K. JADHAV, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J)
Kadam/*
