Allowed

Jigisha Arun Marwale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Jun 2016WP/4521/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of applications for correcting date of birth in school records. The Court held that rejection solely on the technical ground that petitioners left the school was erroneous. Directions were issued for fresh consideration on merits and corrective action.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 16.03.2016 quashed; fresh applications to be considered on merits; decision to be communicated within three weeks; corrections to be made within four weeks if favorable.

Jigisha Arun Marwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4520.16WP+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4520 OF 2016 WITH WP/4521/2016

¶6

GANESHPRITAM ARUN MARWALE

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

...

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. G.J. Karne h/f
Mrs.Biradar Meera T.

¶11

AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.G. Magre
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. U.S. Mote

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: June 09, 2016

¶14

...

¶15

PER COURT :-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.

¶17

2.It appears that the applications for
correction of date of birth in the School
record are rejected by the Respondent -
Education Officer on the ground that the
petitioners have already left the school. In
fact on the said ground the Respondent –
Education Officer should not have rejected
the applications. The Division Bench of this
Court while considering the similar fact

¶18

4520.16WP+

¶19

¶20

situation, referring the provisions of Para 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code in para 12 of the reported judgment in the case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab vs State of Maharashtra and others¹ , held thus:

¶21

“12. 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 change the respondent No.2 would have to be satisfied about the merits of the case and the bona fides of the petitioner.”

¶22

3In the light of the discussion
herein above and in particular, the
observations of this Court in para 12 of the
judgment in case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed
Khadarsab (supra), we are of the opinion that
the applications of the petitioners should
not have been rejected only on the ground
that the petitioners have left the school.

1 2012(5) Mh.L.J.36;

4520.16WP+

4.In that view of the matter, the
impugned communication dated 16.03.2016
issued by the Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad is quashed and set
aside. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, on instructions, submits that
the petitioners will file fresh applications
before Respondent No.4 within 10 days from
today. Upon receiving such applications,
Respondent No.4 shall forward the same to
Respondent No.3 within one week thereafter.
Upon receiving such applications from
Respondent No.4, Respondent No.3 shall take
decision on the said applications, as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably
within three weeks thereafter, keeping in
view the Para 26.4 of the Secondary Schools
Code and communicate the said decision to all
concerned.

¶27

5.In case, the decision of Respondent
No.3 is favourable to the petitioners,
necessary correction in the school record and
also record of the Secondary and Higher
Secondary Board should be made within four
weeks thereafter. We make it clear that
Respondent No.3 shall not reject the

¶28

4520.16WP+

¶29

¶30

applications of the petitioners on the ground
that they have already left the school.

¶31

6.The Petitions are allowed in the
above terms and same stand disposed of.

¶32

SGA

Jigisha Arun Marwale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jigisha Arun Marwale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmalabai Vishnu Gawali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dadasaheb Govindrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Akhtar Ahmed Md. Shafiuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Govind Pundlik Marde Vs Sanjaykumar Samrthrao Kaudgave and Others

Nevjeevan Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its Secretary Sheikh Shabbir Janimiya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vyankatrao Dyanoba Mane Vs Mukesh Balasaheb Rajemane and Others