Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

. It is further case of the petitioner that, after he passed the Standard "X' Examination (SSC Examination), in the month of March 2010, he 4 wp433.12 took admission in the 5th respondent College in Standard 'XI' (Commerce stream). By an application/letter dated 17-09-2010 the petitioner's father requested the Principal of the 5th respondent Junior College to effect the change in the relevant record with the correct name of the petitioner. The said correspondence between the Principal of the 5th respondent and the father of the petitioner is placed on record alongwith writ petition. The Principal of the 5th respondent in turn, wrote to the 2nd respondent Deputy Director of Education making the similar request to make the correction in the petitioner's first name. By a letter dated 12-07-2011 the 2nd respondent informed the Principal of the 5th respondent College that as per the provisions of Rule 26.3 of the Secondary School Code the name or surname of a student cannot be changed once school is left by him/her.

It is submitted that, the petitioner has got his name corrected by gazetting the same in the Government Gazette. In spite of that, the correction has not been carried out by the respondent authorities in the school record. It 6 wp433.12 is further submitted that, it was a bonafide mistake on the part of 4th respondent school while giving school leaving certificate. It is submitted that, merely because the petitioner has left the school, cannot be ground to refuse to correct the school record. It is submitted that, Rule 26.3 of the Secondary School Code cannot be read in isolation and same has to be read conjointly with Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code. It is submitted that, Education Inspector refused to entertain the request of the petitioner citing Rule 26.3 which pertains to change in date of birth whereas he could have done it under Rule 26.4(2) of the Secondary School Code. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. In order to lend support to aforesaid contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Kishor s/o Sukhdeo Walhekar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others dated 07-01-2009 in Writ Petition No.3319 7 wp433.12 of 2005 and submitted that, in the facts of that case, this Court has invoked provisions of Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code and directed the authorities to consider the prayer of the petitioner therein for correction of date of birth. Therefore, in the facts of this case also, this Court may direct the respondent authorities to consider the prayer/request of the petitioner for correction of his first name in school record.

It appears that, the Deputy Director of Education relied upon Rule 26.3 of the Secondary School Code, while entertaining the request for correction in the name of the petitioner in 10 wp433.12 school/college record, and turned down the same.

In our opinion, the approach of the Deputy Director of Education to ignore Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code cannot be countenanced.

Rule 26.3 and 26.4 of the Secondary School Code reads thus :

26.3. No alteration in the date of birth or other entries in the General Register, including correction of spelling shall be allowed without the previous permission of the appropriate authority. No such alteration in the figure of Date of Birth shall, however be allowed even with such permission after the students has left secondary school.