Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Savita Sanjay Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 27 March, 2019

Author: A. M. Dhavale

Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, A. M. Dhavale

                                         1                                   wp 235.18

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                   WRIT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2018

                   SAVITA SANJAY JADHAV
                           VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                             ...
                Advocate for Petitioner :
         Mr. Jadhav N. L. h/f. Mr. M. S. Adate
          AGP for Respondents No. 1, 5 & 8 :
                     Mr. S. P. Tiwari
    Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Nayana Patil
               h/f Ms. Surekha P. Mahajan
            Advocate for Respondent No. 3 :
                   Mr. R. C. Brahmankar
   Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. V. P. Golewar
                   h/f. Mr. A. R. Joshi
   Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr. K. S. Salunke
                  h/f. Mr. S. J. Salunke
                             ...
                            WITH
              CA/2047/2019 IN WP/235/2018
                                          ...


                                  CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                         A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
                                  DATE:      27th MARCH, 2019


 PER COURT :

 1.       The        learned          counsel       for     the        petitioner

 submits            that        the      petitioner         had        filed          an

application for correction of the date of birth in the school record, T.C. and the S.S.C. ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2019 00:40:31 ::: 2 wp 235.18 certificate. The application was moved to the Headmaster, however, no further process was done.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents also.

3. The learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submits that the petitioner has left the school, as such, now cannot ask for the change of date of birth. He relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vinayak Narhari Kolshikwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 179.

4. In large number of cases it has been observed by this Court that Clause 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code is directory in nature. Of course, if the petitioner approaches after a long delay, this Court may refuse to exercise its discretion. However, it appears that in the present case the petitioner has left the school in the year - 2012 and the application is made in the year - 2013. The petitioner has produced the extract of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2019 00:40:31 ::: 3 wp 235.18 register of the school. The petitioner claims that her date of birth is 30.06.1996, however, in the T.C. it is recorded as 25.09.1996. There are two Jadhavs in the chronological order and out of that date of birth of Jadhav Navnath in the said extract of the roster reflects as 25.09.1996. Be that as it may, it is for the authorities to consider the same.

5. The Headmaster shall forward the application filed by the petitioner to the Education Officer with regard to the correction of date of birth. The Education Officer shall follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code read with Appendix - VI. The proposal shall be forwarded by the Headmaster within a period of one week from today and the Education Officer shall after due adherence to the procedure take decision upon it within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter. The procedure as contemplated therein has to be adhered to and followed. ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2019 00:40:31 :::

4 wp 235.18

6. In case the Education Officer takes decision in favour of the petitioner, then the authorities shall take further steps accordingly.

7. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

8. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the Civil application also stands disposed of. [A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2019 00:40:31 :::