Karan Gitaram Aade v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:23314-DB 1 970 WP 9983-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 970 WRIT PETITION NO. 9983 OF 2025 KARAN GITARAM AADE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Ishwar K. Wagh - Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. K.B. Patil - Bharaswadkar - AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3, State ...

CORAM

: MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 26.08.2025 PER COURT :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned A.G.P. appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3.

2.

Considering the nature of the direction we propose to issue in this writ petition, service of notice upon respondent Nos.2 and 4 is dispensed with.

3.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by respondent No.3 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, rejecting the proposal for correction of the petitioner's father's name and surname in the school record. The only reason recorded in the impugned order is that, since the petitioner has already passed out from the school, the proposal cannot be considered under Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code.

4.

We find that the aforesaid reason is unsustainable on a bare

2 970 WP 9983-2025.odt reading of the relevant rule. We have earlier also allowed such petitions and directed that the Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal on a proper application of the Rule.

5.

Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code shows that even if a student has passed out from the school, such a proposal can be considered within the limited scope provided under Rules 26.3 and 26.4 of the Code, pertaining the correction of obvious mistake in the school record.

6.

We are not commenting upon the merits of the claim made on behalf of petitioner, however, we are inclined to partly allow the petition. 7.

In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2025, passed by respondent No.3 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said respondent for fresh consideration.

8.

The proposal shall be considered on its own merits and decided as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within two (2) months from today.

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Pooja Kale/