Bombay High Court
Aditya Kaduba Narode Thr Under Guardian ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 November, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:33235-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12166 OF 2025
Aditya Kaduba Narode Thr Under Guardian Of His Father Kaduba Laxman
Narode
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. K. S. Solanke, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for respondent-State
CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
DATE : 28th November, 2025
PER COURT :-
1. Present petition has been filed for correction of date of birth in the school record. The petitioner submits that his correct date of birth is "22.01.2010" however, in the school record it has been wrongly mentioned as "22.12.2010". The petitioner has filed school leaving certificate wherein his date of birth (Exhibit B) is mentioned as "22.01.2010". Respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 23.07.2025 rejected the application on the ground that the the petitioner is not taking education in the school. The petitioner is relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR OnLine 2019 Bombay 1055].
2. We are coming across many such orders, in spite of the 8-WP-12166-2025.odt 1 of 2 decision of this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra), stating that the applicant/petitioner is not taking education in the school and, therefore, the authority has no jurisdiction or power to make changes in the school record. While allowing the present petition, we direct respondent No.1 to apprise the concerned authorities about the Full Bench decision of this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra) and not to reject the applications on the ground that the person is not taking education in the school. The interpretation in respect of Rule 26.4 of Secondary School Code has been interpreted by this Court and that interpretation is binding on all the authorities. Even after apprising the authorities by respondent No. 1, if we come across such orders, then this Court will consider such orders as contempt.
3. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
4. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue order and grant the proposal forwarded by respondent No. 3 in respect of change in the date of birth of petitioner in the school record within a period of 15 days from today.
(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) B. S. Joshi 8-WP-12166-2025.odt 2 of 2