Bibhishan Sadashiv Rahate Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Bibhishan Sadashiv Rahate Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter relegated back to the Education Officer (Primary) for a fresh decision after extending the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks, in the light of the parameters laid down in Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur (supra).

Issue for consideration

Whether the Education Officer (Primary)'s refusal to consider the petitioner's request for change of his caste entry in the school record, on the sole ground that he has left the school and that no action is permissible under clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1977, is sustainable.

Ratio / Principle

Leaving the educational institute cannot be an anathema for exercising the power under clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1977, in the light of the full bench decision in Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769.

Key takeaways

The impugned communication straightaway refused to entertain the request, without undertaking any scrutiny as to whether the petitioner's request could be considered in the light of the parameters laid down in Janabai (supra); the order is therefore unsustainable.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bibhishan S/o Sadashiv Rahate v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No.5992 of 2024 (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench, 24.06.2024, Mangesh S. Patil & Shailesh P. Brahme JJ., Per Court): The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Beed, by decision dated 15.12.2023, had refused to consider the petitioner's request for change of his caste entry in the school record on the ground that he had left the school, treating no action as permissible under clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1977. Holding that leaving the educational institute cannot be an anathema for exercising the power under clause 26.4 in the light of the full bench decision in Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769, and that the impugned communication refused the request straightaway without any scrutiny against the parameters laid down therein, the Court found the order unsustainable, allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order, and relegated the matter back to the Education Officer (Primary) for a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously and in any case within four weeks, in the light of those parameters.

2024:BHC-AUG:11709-DB

29.WP.5992.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.5992 OF 2024

Bibhishan S/o Sadashiv Rahate

… PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary of Tribal Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32

The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Beed

The Block Education Officer Panchayat Samiti, Shirur Kasar Tq. Shirur Kasar, District Beed

The Head Master, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Bhadkel Center Pangri, Tq. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed … RESPONDENTS

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Tungar Hrishikesh V. AGP for Respondent/Sate : Mr. S.P. Joshi Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 24.06.2024

PER COURT:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent

Education Officer (Primary) dated 15.12.2023, whereby, he has refused

to consider the petitioner’s request for change in the school record to the

1/2

29.WP.5992.24.odt

extent of his caste on the ground that he has left the school and no action is permissible under clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1977.

Leaving of the educational institute cannot be an anathema for exercising the power under clause 26.4, in the light of the full bench decision in the matter of Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769 , albeit, it would depend upon the facts and circumstances as indicated therein, however, without undertaking any scrutiny as to if the petitioner’s request can be considered in the light of the parameters laid down in the matter of Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur (supra), the impugned communication straightaway refuses to entertain the request on the ground mentioned herein above. The order is unsustainable.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated back to the Education Officer (Primary) who shall take the decision afresh after extending petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks in the light of the parameters laid down in the matter of Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur (supra).

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

habeeb

2/2