Gopalsingh Mahavirsingh Saraf Rajput v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:28913-DB (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6820 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12696 OF 2024 GOPALSINGH MAHAVIRSINGH SARAF

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Avinash Salve, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. ...

CORAM :

S.G. MEHARE & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATED :

6 DECEMBER 2024 ORDER:- .

Heard both sides finally considering the exigency in the matter. By way of civil application, the petitioner has placed on record the communication dated 22.11.2024 addressed by respondent No.2 - Education Officer. Petitioner's proposal for correction in the surname has been turned down by the impugned communication only on the reason that the petitioner ceased to be the student of the school. 2.

The petitioner sought correction in his surname. It is wrongly recorded as "Saraf". It should have been "Rajput". His application was returned by communication dated 20.07.2023 by respondent No.3-School. It appears from the

(2) record that simultaneously the proposal for correction was also forwarded by the School to respondent No.2 - Education Officer on 19.11.2024. By the impugned communication, the said proposal is rejected.

3.

Learned A.G.P. supports the impugned order/ communication.

4.

The present case is squarely covered by the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 6 MAJ LJ 769. The reason cited by respondent No.2 - Education Officer in the impugned communication is unsustainable. There is no scrutiny of the proposal of petitioner to find out as to whether the mistake is obvious or not. We are inclined to quash the impugned communication and relegate the parties to respondent No.2 - Education Officer to conduct objective scrutiny and decide the proposal. 5.

The petition is allowed partly.

6.

The communication dated 22.11.2024 is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated to respondent No.2 - Education Officer to consider the proposal afresh and in view of the judgment in the case of Janabai Thakur (supra) and

(3) supporting material of the petitioner.

7.

The decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks from today.

8.

Civil application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME) (S.G. MEHARE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde