Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 808 Bom
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2016
wp8370.15.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8370 OF 2015
Ishita Subodh Seth
age 20 years, occ. Education
r/o 2, Siddhanchal Residency,
Near Omkareshwar Temple
Jai Nagar,
Jalgaon .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1 State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary of
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Deputy Director of Education
Nashik Division, Nashik
3. Principal
M.J. College,
Jalgaon
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. G.L. Gujar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
P. R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 21st MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
wp8370.15.doc
3. Petitioner is objecting to the communication dated 12.05.2025 issued
by the Education Officer (Secondary), whereby application tendered by
petitioner seeking correction in her surname appearing the school record
has been turned down.
4. Petitioner prays for issuing directions for effecting correction in the
surname and, application in that regard has been tendered by her to the
Education Officer through the Head Master of the school where she was
taking education. The application appears to have been turned down by the
Education Officer placing reliance on Rule 26(3) of the Secondary School
Code. The aforesaid rule has been interpreted and this Court has taken a
view that application seeking correction in the school record can be
entertained by the Education Officer even after the pupil has left the school.
Reliance can be placed on a judgment in the matter of Azam Khan s/o Dagd
Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011(5)
Mh.L.J. 255 as well as decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the
matter of Arshad Khalid Jamal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in 2012(4)Mh.L.J. 646.
5. For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid reported judgments, instant
petition deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the Education
Officer needs to be quashed and set aside and, it is accordingly quashed
and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to consider the application
tendered by petitioner through Head Master of school, in accordance with
wp8370.15.doc
the provisions of the Code, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of four months from today and, it is accordingly directed. Rule made
absolute to the extent specified above. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
( P. R. BORA ) ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!