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

Bibhishan Sadashiv Rahate vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 24 June, 2024

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil

2024:BHC-AUG:11709-DB
                                                                            29.WP.5992.24.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO.5992 OF 2024

                   Bibhishan S/o Sadashiv Rahate               ...      PETITIONER

                          VERSUS
             1.    The State of Maharashtra
                   through the Secretary of
                   Tribal Development Department
                   Mantralaya Mumbai-32

             2.    The Education Officer (Primary)
                   Zilla Parishad, Beed

             3.    The Block Education Officer
                   Panchayat Samiti, Shirur Kasar
                   Tq. Shirur Kasar, District Beed

             4.    The Head Master,
                   Zilla Parishad Primary School,
                   Bhadkel Center Pangri,
                   Tq. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed          ...     RESPONDENTS

                               ...
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Tungar Hrishikesh V.
             AGP for Respondent/Sate : Mr. S.P. Joshi
             Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi
                               ...

                                  CORAM               : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                        SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
                                  DATE                : 24.06.2024


             PER COURT:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent

- Education Officer (Primary) dated 15.12.2023, whereby, he has refused to consider the petitioner's request for change in the school record to the 1/2

29.WP.5992.24.odt extent of his caste on the ground that he has left the school and no action is permissible under clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1977.

2. Leaving of the educational institute cannot be an anathema for exercising the power under clause 26.4, in the light of the full bench decision in the matter of Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769, albeit, it would depend upon the facts and circumstances as indicated therein, however, without undertaking any scrutiny as to if the petitioner's request can be considered in the light of the parameters laid down in the matter of Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur (supra), the impugned communication straightaway refuses to entertain the request on the ground mentioned herein above. The order is unsustainable.

3. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated back to the Education Officer (Primary) who shall take the decision afresh after extending petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks in the light of the parameters laid down in the matter of Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur (supra).

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 2/2