Allowed

Pratima Pramot Gunjal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2018WP/1385/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged a rejection of an application to correct the petitioner's date of birth in her school leaving certificate on technical grounds (having left the school). The court relied on precedent and the Secondary Schools Code, holding that technical rejection was impermissible. The impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 01.02.2012 by respondent no.2 set aside. Application restored to file to be decided on merits by 30.04.2018.

Pratima Pramot Gunjal Vs the State of Mah and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1385.2012WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1385 OF 2012

¶5

Pratima Pramod Gunjal,
Age 31 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Dwarka Nagar, Amalner,
Tq. Amalner, Dist.Jalgaon. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

2. The Municipal Council Education Board, Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Administration Officer

¶9

3. The Headmistress, Navin Marathi Shala, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶10

4. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Through its Secretary Bank of India building 3^rd Floor, M.G.Marg., Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-1. RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

Mr.B.R.Warma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.J.Salgare, AGP for the Respondent
No.1/State
Mr.S.S.Shete, Advocate for respondent no.2
[absent].

¶13

Mrs.M.N.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent
no.3 [absent].
Respondent no.4 served.

¶14

1385.2012WP

¶15

¶16

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶17

S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶18

Reserved on : 27.02.2018
 Pronounced on : 05.03.2018

¶19

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶20

1]Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶21

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶22

2]This Petition is filed with the

¶23

following prayers:

¶24

A) By issuing writ of Certiorari or appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature impugned communication dt. 1/2/2012 issued by respondent no.2 being out ward No.56/549/2011-12 (EXH-J) may please be quashed and set aside and respondent no.2 be directed to issue necessary orders for correction of

¶25

birth date entry of petitioner recorded in education record of respondent no.3 school as per extract of birth register (EXH-E)

¶26

1385.2012WP

¶27

¶28

issued by Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.

¶29

B) By issuing writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ or directions in the like nature the respondent no.4 be directed to accept and consider the birth date of petitioner shown on birth certificate issued by the Registrar Birth and Death Registration Act i.e. Municipal Corporation Jalgaon at the time of interview for post of Police Sub Inspector examination 2011.

¶30

3]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner submits that when the petitioner
was admitted in the primary school at
Amalner, her date of birth has been shown as
04.05.1981 by her parents. Accordingly,
initial record of school was prepared and
maintained by respondent no.3. The petitioner
completed her education up to graduation and
thereafterappearedforcompetitative
examinations. It is the case of the

¶32

1385.2012WP

¶33

¶34

petitioner that date of birth appearing in
S.S.C. certificate is on the basis of the

¶35

school leaving certificate issued by
respondent no.3, on completion of education
of 4th standard by the petitioner. Respondent
no.3 has committed mistake in mentioning the

¶36

date of birth at the time of issuance of the
school leaving certificate. The petitioner
thought it fit to correct the date of birth
in the school record, and therefore, filed an
application in the office of respondent no.3
and requested to correct the date of birth on
the basis of birth certificate issued by the

¶37

Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.
Respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that
since the petitioner has left the school, no

¶38

changes can be made in the school leaving
certificate in respect of the date of birth
of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner

¶39

filed an application on 17.01.2012 before
respondent no.2 under Section 48 [e] of the

¶40

1385.2012WP

¶41

¶42

Bombay Primary Education Rules and requested
respondent no.2 to issue necessary orders for
correction of birth date in basic education
record i.e. record of primary school. On
receipt of the said application, respondent
no.2 also informed the petitioner that the

¶43

Board has no power to issue orders for
correction of birth date in the primary
education record.

¶44

4]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶45

petitioner submits that as per the Birth and
Death Registration Act, the maternity
Hospital is under obligation to inform the

¶46

birth date and gender along with name of
mother / father to the Registrar i.e. Chief

¶47

Officer / Commissioner of the Municipal
Council or Corporation. Therefore, entry in

¶48

the birth register would prevail for
consideration of age. Learned counsel further
submits that similar issue like raised in the
present petition has already been considered

¶49

1385.2012WP

¶50

¶51

by the Division Bench [Coram: S.S.Shinde & P.R.Bora, JJ.] of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Bhagwan Gulabsing Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra & others in Writ Petition No.3639 of 2015, decided on 7^th May, 2015, by another Division Bench in the case of Vinod s/o Bapurao Singewar Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.4264 of 2009, decided on 15.01.2010 and in the case of Popat Trimbak Palve Vs.The State of Maharashtra & others in Writ Petition

¶52

No.5976/2010 decided on 24.09.2010.

¶53

5]On the other hand, learned AGP

¶54

appearing for the respondent-State fairly submits that the issue raised in this Petition is answered by the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Gulabsing Rajput [cited supra] .

¶55

6]We have heard the learned counsel

¶56

1385.2012WP

¶57

¶58

appearing for the parties, perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto including the impugned order passed by the authority and the judgment of this Court in the case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab Vs. State of Maharashtra and others¹ . This Court while considering the similar fact situation, referring the provisions of para 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code in para 12 of the judgment, held thus:

¶59

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

¶60

the application on its own merits and ought not to have rejected it only on the technical ground that the

¶61

12012 [5] Mh.L.J. 36

¶62

1385.2012WP

¶63

¶64

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.”

¶65

7]In the light of the discussion

¶66

herein above and in particular, the observations of this Court in para 12 of the judgment in the case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed

¶67

Khadarsba [supra] , we are of the opinion that the application of the petitioner should not

¶68

have been rejected only on the ground that

¶69

the petitioner has left the school. It is
open for the authority concerned to consider
the application in the light of the provision

¶70

of Para 26.4 of the S.S. Code and give
reasons while accepting or rejecting the
prayer of the petitioner.

¶71

8]In that view of the matter, the
impugned order / communication dated

¶72

1385.2012WP

¶73

¶74

01.02.2012 passed / issued by respondent

¶75

No.2 is set aside. The application of the
petitioner is restored to its original file.
Respondent no.2 is directed to decide the
application of the petitioner afresh in the
light of above mentioned provisions of the
S.S. Code, as expeditiously as possible,

¶76

however, on or before 30.04.2018, on its own
merits. The Petition is allowed to above
extent and stands disposed of accordingly.
Rule is made absolute on above terms.

¶77

authenticated copy of this order.

¶78

[S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶79

DDC

Pratima Pramot Gunjal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Pramot Gunjal v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Surendra Tukaram Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinkar Sakharam Nagare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhondiram Hiraji Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sheshnath Jagannath Admane and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Tukaram Gadhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Meenakshi Satish Parpelli Vs Satish Pochayya Parepelli