Disposed

Sheela Kishanrao Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Jan 2017WP/304/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad directed an Education Officer to reconsider the petitioner's application for correcting her date of birth. The Court ruled that the summary rejection was incorrect under a cited precedent and mandated a decision on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no.3 directed to decide the petitioner's application on merits within four weeks.

Sheela Kishanrao Waghmare Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 25-WP304-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.304 OF 2017

¶4

Sheela w/o. Kishanrao Waghmare,
Age : 29 years,
Occ. Anganwadi Sevika,
r/o. Tontaba, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Women and Child Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and ors...Respodents

¶7

Mr.C.R.Thorat, Advocate for petitioner

¶8

Mr.A.B.Girase, G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3

¶9

Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶10

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 18, 2017

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

2.The petitioner had applied for correction
of her date of birth after she has passed out from
the school. Respondent no.3 - Education Officer

¶14

2 25-WP304-17.odt

¶15

has refused to entertain the application relying
on 26.4 of the S.S. Code.

¶16

3.Our attention is invited to a judgment in
the case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and ors., 2012(7) All.MR.437.
In view of the said judgment, the Education
Officer should not have summarily rejected the
application filed by the petitioner for correction
in her date of birth and should have followed the
ratio laid down the in the said judgment.

¶17

4.We, therefore, direct respondent no.3 –
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Nanded to decide the application of the petitioner
on merits and in accordance with law under Rule
26.4 of the S.S. Code, within a period of four
weeks from today.

¶18

5.With these direction, the petition stands
disposed of.

¶19

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [V.M. KANADE, J.]

¶20

kbp

Sheela Kishanrao Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Kishanrao Waghmare 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

M/S R G Sanap Construction Company through Its Proprietor Raosaheb Govindrao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rasul Babaji Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Padmaja Gulabrao More and Another Vs the Chief Election Officer Maharashtra Election Commission Mumbai and Others

Prataprao Gangadharrao Chavan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankuntala Zumbar Kale Vs the Chief Officer Municipal Council Osmanabad

Devidas Ramchandra Tidke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others