Partly allowed

Astik Suresh Rangneniwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC24 Jul 2023WP/8795/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Bombay HC Bench at Aurangabad quashed an order refusing to correct caste description in the petitioner's school record. The Court held that the Education Officer must reconsider the request citing Janabai case law allowing correction of obvious mistakes even after the pupil leaves the school.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and set aside. The respondent Education Officer was directed to reconsider the request afresh within six weeks.

Astik Suresh Rangneniwar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

39 WP 8795 OF 2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 39 WRIT PETITION NO.8795 OF 2023

¶4

ASTIK SURESH RANGNENIWAR
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sabnis Ameya N.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.G. Sangale

¶7

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 24.07.2023

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P.

¶11

2. By the impugned order, the respondent-Education Officer (Secondary) has refused to exercise the powers vesting in him by virtue of clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code for correction of his school record to the extent of description of the caste only on the ground that he had left the school.

¶12

3. This Court in the matter of Janabai d/o Himmatrao Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2019 (6) Mh.J.J. 769 has expressly laid down the parameters to be taken into consideration while exercising the powers under clause 26. If it is an obvious mistake, the authorities can exercise the power even after the pupil leaves the school.

¶13

4. In the light of above the only ground on which the impugned order has been passed being unsustainable, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the respondent No. 2-Education Officer in the light of the observations and the decision in the matter of Janabai (supra).

¶14

5. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed

¶15

1/2

¶16

and set aside. The respondent-Education Officer (Secondary) shall consider
the request afresh on its own merits and in the light of the decision in the
matter of Janabai (supra) as expeditiously as possible and in any case within
six weeks from today.

¶17

 ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶18

mkd/-

¶19

2/2

Astik Suresh Rangneniwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Astik Suresh Rangneniwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary 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

The Chief Executive Officer and Another Vs Yogesh Jayajirao Patil and Others

Aditya Yogiraj Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Bhagyashri Yogiraj Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Abhishek Suresh Tiparse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shubham Girish Visave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hrishikesh Girish Visave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others