Bombay High Court
Parshuram Krushna Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 18 October, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:22562-DB
962.WP.490.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.490 OF 2023
Parshuram s/o Krushna Gaikwad ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya Mumbai
2. The Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
3. The Head Master
Vinayak Higher Secondary School,
Peth Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Basarkar Anil P.
AGP for Respondent /State : Mr. S.R. Yadav - Lonikar
Advocate for respondent No.3 : Mr. V.S. Kadam
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 18.10.2023
ORDER :(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. The petitioner is challenging the communication dated 25.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 - Education Officer rejecting the proposal for correction in the school record.
3. The petitioner has sought correction in the school record to the extent of caste. His caste was wrongly recorded as 'Takari' which should have been 'Wadari'. Therefore application was submitted to the 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 00:31:55 :::
962.WP.490.23.odt respondent No.3 - School. It was forwarded to the Education Officer by letter dated 14.11.2022. By impugned communication it was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner ceased to be the student of the school concerned and as per provisions of Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1977 it was not permissible to correct the record.
4. In view of the 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 the reason cited by the Education Officer is unsustainable. The Education Officer has to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as per Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code,1977 as well as the parameters laid down in the matter of Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur (supra).
5. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent No.2 - Education Officer to reconsider the proposal and take a decision afresh on its own merits. The communication dated 25.11.2022 is quashed. The respondent No.2 shall decide the proposal within six weeks.
6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 00:31:55 :::