Bombay High Court
Vivek Hemant Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
2023:BHC-AUG:18606-DB
902.wp.12193.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12193 OF 2022
Vivek Hemant Jadhav ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Secretary,
Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board Pune.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dist. Dhule.
5. Raje Chatrapati Marshal Aarts
English Medium Public School
Pimpalner,Tq: Sakri, Dist: Dhule
through its Principal ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Temak Rahul B.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Y.R. Marlapalle
Advocate for respondent No.5 : Mr. A.T. Kanawade
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 29.08.2023
PER COURT :
Heard both the sides.
2. The petitioner is assailing an order dated 31.10.2022 passed by
the Education Officer (Secondary) rejecting the application of the petitioner
for correcting his date of birth in the school record. Only ground assigned
902.wp.12193.22.odt
by Education Officer is that petitioner ceased to be a student of the school
concerned.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was admitted in the school
in the year 2004. At the relevant time the date of birth of the petitioner was
recorded as 21.10.1998. Later on it revealed to the petitioner that an
incorrect date of birth was recorded. Therefore, an application was
submitted to the respondent No.5 for correction of the date of birth on the
basis of documents available with the petitioner. The correct date of birth
was 21.10.1999. The respondent No.5 forwarded the application to the
respondent No.4. By the impugned order/communication the request of the
petitioner was rejected.
4. The learned AGP has submitted that there is an alternate
remedy in view of Clause 15 of the Appendix VI of Secondary School Code.
As the impugned order/communication is fragrantly violative of the
judgment delivered by the full bench, we are not entertaining the plea of
alternate remedy raised by learned AGP. We do not think it fit to relegate
the petitioner to appellate forum in the given facts of the matter.
5. The issue involved in this petition is no more res integra.
Already a judgment rendered by full bench in the matter of Janabai d/o.
Himmatrao Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769
is operating in the filed. It is the respondent No.4 who has power to correct
the school record. The reason assigned by the respondent No.4 is
unsustainable.
902.wp.12193.22.odt
6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of by
following directions :
i. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2022 passed
by Education Officer Secondary is quashed and set aside.
ii. The matter is relegated to the Education Officer to decide the
application for correction of date of birth afresh on its own
merit considering the document placed on the record.
iii. The respondent No.4 shall decide the application within a
period of two weeks.
iv. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
