Allowed

Santosh Ramkishan Wakade v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC12 Jul 2016WP/4630/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a communication rejecting a proposal for change of date of birth or caste due to the petitioner leaving the school. The court allowed the petitioner to submit the proposal in the correct form within two weeks, directing authorities to decide based on merits without reusing the 'left school' ground.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned communication. Liberty granted to submit proposal in appropriate form within two weeks. Order given for transmission and decision within specified timelines.

Santosh Ramkishan Wakade Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4630.16wp

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4630 OF 2016

¶6

Santosh s/o Ramkishan Wakade,
age .. years, occu. Nil,
r/o Dhoksal Tq. Badnapur,
Dist. Jalna.

¶7

… PETITIONER.

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The State of Maharahstra,
through its Principal Secretary,
SchoolEducation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

¶10

2. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad,
Jalna.

¶11

… RESPONDENTS.

¶12

...

¶13

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Jadhav Vivek U.
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr.S.P. Deshpande.
Advocate for R.No.2: Mr.Tope Sambhaji S.

¶14

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶15

 Dated: JULY 12, 2016.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SHINDE, J)

¶17

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent

¶18

of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶19

4630.16wp

¶20

¶21

2.This petition takes exception to the
communication dated 6th October, 2015 issued
by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Jalna (Primary Section) to the Head Master,
Zilla Parishad Primary School, Dhoksal,
Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna.

¶22

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that one of the reasons assigned by
the Education Officer to reject the proposal
is that the petitioner has left the school.
In support of his contention that though the
candidate has left the school, still the
Education Officer can consider the prayer for
change of date of birth or caste, he placed
reliance on the decision dated 4th September,
2014 in case of Mr.Manoj Shivappa Sakhare vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ
Petition No.7675 of 2014 with connected
petitions.

¶23

4630.16wp

¶24

¶25

4.On the other hand, the learned Counsel

¶26

for respondent No.2, relying upon the
unreported judgment delivered on 8th October,
2012 by the Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.3266 of 2012 (Vilas s/o
Dattatraya Ransubhe Vs The State of
Maharashtra and others), submits that if the
petitioner is aggrieved, he has remedy to
approach the Deputy Director of Education.

¶27

5.We have considered the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner as also
the respondents. The fact that the proposal
was not submitted in Form No.3 as per Rule
26.4 of the Secondary School Code, is not in
dispute.

¶28

6.In that view of the matter, we quash and
set aside the impugned communication and
grant liberty to the petitioner to submit the
proposal in the appropriate form as mentioned

¶29

4630.16wp

¶30

¶31

above, to the Head Master of the concerned
School, as expeditiously as possible;
however, within two weeks from today. Upon
receiving such proposal, the concerned Head
Master to submit the same along with his
recommendation / remark to the Block
Education Officer, within three weeks
thereafter. The Block Education Officer,
after considering the said proposal, shall
forward it to the Education Officer. The
Education Officer concerned to take decision
on the said proposal, as expeditiously as
possible; however, within three weeks after
receipt of the said proposal, without raising
the ground that the petitioner has left the
school and therefore, request for change in
record cannot be considered. However, we
make it clear that it is for the respondent
No.2 to consider the proposal on its own
merits, after verifying the documents on
record. We have not expressed any opinion on

¶32

4630.16wp

¶33

¶34

merits of the matter.

¶35

7.The writ petition is disposed of on the
above terms. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶36

Kadam/*

Santosh Ramkishan Wakade v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Ramkishan Wakade v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Gokul Rajaramji Ingle Vs Union of India, Thr. the Vice Chairman and Others

Abdul Mannan Abdul Raouf Farooqui Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Ramchandra Khandale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaidas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Bibhishan Rangnath Bodhwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ansari Arshad Nadeem Abdul Reheman and Others Vs the Pathri Municipal Council, Pathri