Disposed

Manoj Chhagan Kambale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Apr 2016WP/3651/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking direction to correct the petitioner's date of birth in school records, which had been rejected solely because the petitioner was no longer enrolled. The court quashed the rejection based on a Division Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to file fresh application for correction of date of birth in school records.

Manoj Chhagan Kambale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 36-wp3651-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3651 OF 2016

¶4

Manoj s/o. Chhagan Kambale

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

and ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr.P.P.More, advocate for petitioner

¶11

Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1 –
State

¶12

Mr.B.A.Shinde, advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3

¶13

Mrs.Surekha Mahajan, advocate for respondent no.4

¶14

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 07, 2016

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶17

petitioner; learned AGP appearing for respondent

¶18

no.1 – State; learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.2 and 3; and learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.4. With their able

¶19

2 36-wp3651-16.odt

¶20

assistance, perused the pleadings in the petition,

¶21

annexures thereto and the relevant rules.

¶22

2]This petition is filed by the petitioner

¶23

seeking direction to the respondents/authorities
to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as
28th February, 1998 instead of 29th February, 1998,
in the school admission register and the other
school records.

¶24

3]Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶25

submits that the application filed by the
petitioner for correction of the date of birth,
came to be rejected on the ground that the
petitioner has left the school and joined the
junior college.

¶26

4] Upon perusal of the communication dated 1st

¶27

September, 2015, Exhibit-E page 22 of the
compilation of the petition, it appears that

¶28

3 36-wp3651-16.odt

¶29

respondent no.2 has declined to entertain the

¶30

application of the petitioner for correction of
the date of birth, on the ground that the
petitioner has left the school and therefore, the
request for correction of date of birth in the
school record cannot be considered.

¶31

5] The controversy raised in this petition is no longer res-integra and answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2012(7) All.M.R. 437. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision reads thus :-

¶32

“10. 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 there by that it shall not be entertained on behalf of the pupil who has left the

¶33

4 36-wp3651-16.odt

¶34

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.

¶35

11. In the present case, the application has been rejected not on merits but only on the technical ground that it had been made after the petitioner had left the school and joined the junior college. In our view, the respondent No.3 Education Officer ought to have considered the application on its own merits and ought not to have rejected it only on the technical ground that the application had been made after the petitioner had left the school. Of course, for ordering any

¶36

5 36-wp3651-16.odt

¶37

change the respondent No.2 would have to be satisfied about the merits of the case and the bona fides of the petition er.

¶38

6]In that view of the matter, we grant liberty
to the petitioner to file a fresh application to
respondent no.3. We direct respondent no.3 to
forward such application within two weeks from
receipt of the application, to respondent no.2.
Respondent no.2 shall, keeping in view the
instructions contained in para 26.4 of the S.S.
Code and observations made herein above, consider
the application on merit and within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of the
application and shall communicate the decision to
respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶39

favourable to the petitioner, respondent nos.3 and
4 to make corrections in the school record in
respect of the date of birth of the petitioner as

¶40

6 36-wp3651-16.odt

¶41

expeditiously as possible, however, within a period

¶42

of two weeks from the date of receipt of
communication from respondent no.2. The entire
exercise be completed by respondent nos.2 to 4
within a period of ten weeks.

¶43

8]We make it clear that respondent no.2 should
not reject the application of the petitioner for
the same reason which was assigned in the letter
dated 1st September, 2015 addressed to respondent
no.3 by respondent no.2 i.e. Exhibit-E, page 22 of
the petition.

¶44

9]We further make it clear that in case, no
decision is taken by respondent nos.2 to 4 within
the time as directed herein above, the petitioner
would be at liberty to revive his prayer to seek
direction to the respondents to accept his
examination form for 12th standard supplementary
examination which is to be held in future.

¶45

7 36-wp3651-16.odt

¶46

10]With the above directions, the Writ Petition

¶47

stands disposed of.

¶48

11]Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.

¶49

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶50

kbp

Manoj Chhagan Kambale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Chhagan Kambale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muslim Educational Cultural Health and Welfare Society through Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vikas Uttamrao Zadpide Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vithal Wamanrao Arya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Keshavrao Akolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Amrutrao Hambarde Vs the Honble Presiding Officer School Tribunal Latur and Others

Pushpa Vishwanath Gayake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others