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 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Swapneel S/O.Maroti Sonwale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 July, 2013

Author: R.V.Ghuge

Bench: R. M. Borde, R.V. Ghuge

                                           1             Writ No.410 of 2013 and another




                                                                          
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                      WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2013




                                                 
    Swapneel S/o.Maroti Sonwale,
    Age-20 years, Occu-Education,
    R/o.N-11, Shivajinagar, Garkheda,
    Aurangabad                                                  PETITIONER




                                          
                                               
                VERSUS 
    1.    The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its Secretary,
                      
          School Education Department,
          Government of Maharashtra,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
      


    2.    The Education Officer (Secondary)
          Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
   



    3.    The Headmaster,
          Amanvishwa High School,
          Dhartidhan Society, Garkheda,





          Aurangabad                                              RESPONDENTS

                               WITH
                      WRIT PETITION NO.412 OF 2013





    Sanket S/o.Maroti Sonwale,
    Age-18 years, Occu-Education,
    R/o.N-11, Shivajinagar, Garkheda,
    Aurangabad                                                  PETITIONER
                                               
                VERSUS

    1.    The State of Maharashtra,




                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 :::
                                               2                  Writ No.410 of 2013 and another




                                                                                  
           Through its Secretary,
           School Education Department,




                                                          
           Government of Maharashtra,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

    2.     The Education Officer (Secondary)




                                                         
           Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad

    3.     The Headmaster,
           Amanvishwa High School,




                                            
           Dhartidhan Society, Garkheda,
           Aurangabad       ig                                     RESPONDENTS

    Mr.C.K.Shinde, Advocate for petitioners. 
    Mr.N.B.Patil , A.G.P. for respondents no.1 and 2. 
                          
    Mr.S.B.Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.3. 

                                 (CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND 
      

                                                R.V.GHUGE, J.J. )
   



                                     DATE : 04/07/2013


    ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per R.V.Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioners claim to be belonging to "Wani" caste, which falls in Other Backward Classes. The petitioners state that they have taken education from 5th standard till 10th standard from the respondent no.3 Amanvishwa High School, Dhartidhan Society, Garkheda. The school record and especially the Admission Register ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 ::: 3 Writ No.410 of 2013 and another wrongly maintains the caste of the petitioners as "Lingder" instead of "Wani". It is further contended that the school leaving certificates issued by the respondent no.3/school bears the entry "Lingder" in the caste column. The petitioners thereafter passed their 11th and 12th standard from the Swami Vivekanand College. However, the school leaving certificates submitted to the College prompted the said college to continue with the same entry "Lingder" relating to the caste of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners further state that since it is wrongly mentioned in their caste column as "Lingder", the Sub Divisional Officer, Kandhar has issued correct caste certificates to the petitioners on 04/06/2010 containing the entry "Wani-190", which is recognized as Other Backward Classes Category.

4. The petitioners state that the caste column incorrectly bears the caste entry as "Lingder", which ought to have been "Wani-OBC".

The petitioners further state that none of their family members including themselves, have availed of any benefits available to the "Lingder" community. Their present caste certificates correctly carry entry as "Wani" and the school record contains the otherwise.

Therefore, the petitioners preferred applications supported with an affidavit and annexed their "Wani-OBC" caste certificate, which are submitted to the respondent no.3/school. The said school favourably re-commended for effecting the change/correction relating to their caste record and submitted it to the respondent no.2/Zilla Parishad.

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 ::: 4 Writ No.410 of 2013 and another

However, the respondent no.2, without giving any notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, rejected said proposals on the ground that since the petitioners have already left the school, such a correction in the school record is not permissible. It is this order dated 24/09/2012 which is impugned in these petitions.

5. Rule 26.4 of The Secondary Schools Code, 2006 has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Vs. the State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012(5), 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 35 and Vilas S/o.Dattatraya Ransubhe, reported in 2013(1) Mh.L.J.851. In para no.11 of the Shaikh Shafi's judgment (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus :

"11. For all these reasons, we hold that the instructions contained in para 26.4 of the S. S. Code that an application for change of an entry in the General Register of a school shall be entertained only on behalf of the pupil who is attending the school meaning thereby that it shall not be entertained on behalf of the pupil who has left the school, are directory and not mandatory. In our view, such an application can be entertained even after the pupil has left the school, provided the application is bona-fide and the pupil is able to satisfy that the original entry in the General Register of the school is erroneous. The application can be rejected if the entry is not shown to be erroneous and wrong. It, however, cannot be rejected without it being considered on merits, only on the technical ground that the application has been made after the pupil has left the school."
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 ::: 5 Writ No.410 of 2013 and another

5. Appendix Six of the Secondary Schools Code, 2006 lays down the procedure in respect of making correction and change in names, surnames, caste/sub- caste, date of birth etc., Paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of Appendix Six reads thus :

" Change in Caste or Sub-Caste (in respect of B.C. pupils only):
(12) For making changes in caste or sub-caste of Backward Class pupils the guardian of the pupil shall make an application in Form No. 3 accompanying these rules.
(13) Permission may be given to change the entries in the General Register of the school in respect of "caste" or "sub-

caste" of Backward Class pupils in the following circumstances.

(i) due to wrong entries made initially;
(ii) due to change in religion;
(iii) if the caste previously treated as non-backward was subsequently declared by Government as Backward or vice-versa.
(iv) due to adoption;
(v) due to inter-caste or inter- religion marriage;
(14) For this purpose, the necessary certificates from the following authorities must accompany the application for change of caste or sub-caste:
(a) For Reasons, (i),(ii) and (iii) above:
             In        (a)     The   Chief   Presidency   Magistrate   or  
             Greater           the Presidency Magistrate authorised  
             Bombay            by him; or




                                             ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 :::
                                    6                   Writ No.410 of 2013 and another




                                                                        
                          (b)   Justice of Peace; or (Deleted)
                          (c)   Social,   Welfare   Officer,   Greater  




                                               
                                Bombay, Bombay. 
                                In other areas 
(d) The District Magistrates or Executive Magistrates authorized by them; or
(e) Honorary Magistrates; or (Deleted)
(f) The Social Welfare Officer of the district concerned.
(b) Due to adoption : The original adoption-deed or a certified copy of that deed or a certificate from stipendiary Magistrate showing the change in name (if any) and the caste or sub-caste changed as a result of adoption should accompany the application for change in caste or sub-

caste.

(c) Due to inter-caste or inter- religion marriage : A declaration by the parent or guardian attested by two witnesses and the student himself/herself or certified copy of the certificate of registration of marriage should accompany the application for change in caste or sub-caste along with the certificate from the concerned competent authority mentioned in (a) above showing that the caste or sub- caste has changed as a result of the marriage.

(d) Due to any other reason :

An affidavit made before a stipendiary Magistrate by the parent or guardian should accompany the application for change in caste of sub-caste.
N.B.: The term "Backward Class" means and includes the following categories.


             1 Scheduled        As   per   Scheduled   Castes   and  
               castes and       Scheduled   Tribes   Lists  
Schedule Caste Modification Order, 1956, as ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 ::: 7 Writ No.410 of 2013 and another converts to adopted for Maharashtra State.

Buddhism.





                                                          
                        2 Scheduled              Vide   Part   VIIA   of   the   Seventh  
                          Tribes                 and   Eight   Schedule   of   the  




                                                         
                          including those        Bombay   Reorganization   Act,  
                          outside                1960   and   orders   issued   by  
                          specified areas.       Government in this behalf from  
                                                 time to time.




                                           
                        3 De-notified            As   per   Government   Resolution,  
                          Tribes and  
                           ig                    education   and   Social   Welfare  
                          Nomadic                Deptt.   No.   CBC   1361-M,   dated  
                          Tribes.                21st   November   1961   and  
                                                 Government from time to time.
                         
                        4 Other                  Castes   which   have   been  
                          Backward               declared   as   belonging   to   the  
                          Classes.               other   Backward   Classes   by  
                                                 Government from time to time.
      
   



                 General :- (Please also see Annexure 36).

15. An appeal against the decision of the Educational Inspector, Greater Bombay or as the case may be, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad concerned, who has not sanctioned the change shall be submitted to the Deputy Director concerned within 30 days of the receipt of the order."

6. In Vilas Ransubhe's judgment (cited supra), this Court has placed reliance on the Shaikh Shafi's judgment. The Division Bench of this Court, in the said judgment has observed thus :

"6. On fulfillment of requirements laid down under Appendix Six, the application tendered for effecting change in the entries recorded in school record can be entertained.
Respondents were therefore not justified in turning down the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 ::: 8 Writ No.410 of 2013 and another application tendered by the petitioner on the ground that the entries recorded in the school record cannot be corrected after pupil has left school. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad is required to be directed to consider the application tendered by the petitioner to the school authorities and which has been forwarded to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, in accordance with provisions of Secondary Schools Code, 2006. The orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 impugned in this petition, are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad for reconsideration. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad shall proceed to take decision on the application in accordance with provisions of Secondary Schools Code, 2006 and the observations made in this judgment. The petitioner shall cause appearance before the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad on 29th October, 2012 and as such, no separate notice requiring petitioner's appearance before respondent No. 3 shall be essential. Respondent No. 3 shall decide the application, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight (8) weeks from date of appearance of petitioner before him. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs."
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 ::: 9 Writ No.410 of 2013 and another

7. We convinced that the said issue as regards correction with reference to caste in the school leaving certificates is no longer res-

integra. In light of the facts set out here-in-above and in light of the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the 2 judgments (cited supra), we have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order of the respondent no.2 dated 24/09/2012. The petitioners deserve to be heard, in as much as, the appropriate authorities need to follow the due procedure of Law in considering the request of the petitioners. As such, we direct the petitioners to cause their appearance before the respondent no.2 on 05/08/2013. No separate notice needs to be issued requiring the appearance of petitioners.

Respondent no.2 shall decide the applications of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioners

8. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs.

           ( R.V.GHUGE, J. )                                  ( R.M.BORDE, J.)





                                


    khs/July 2013/wp410-13




                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:23 :::