Mohammed Abdul Waheb Mohammed Abdul Rauf v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO. 9570 OF 2015 MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHEB MOHAMMED ABDUL RAUF

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Manale Satish S. AGP for Respondents/State: Mr.S.K. Tambe.

Respondent 4 served.

...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.

Dated: February 22, 2016 ...

Heard.

A limited grievance raised in this petition is that the application filed by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the school record has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has already left the school. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the application of the petitioner should not have been rejected simply on the ground that the petitioner has left the school. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of

Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab vs State of Maharashtra and others1, and submits that the ratio laid down in the said case is squarely applicable in the facts of this case.

The learned AGP appearing for the respondents / State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the petition may be dismissed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto including the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.4 - school authority and the judgment of this Court in case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab (supra). 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:

"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 the application on its own merits and ought not to have rejected it only on the technical ground that the application had been made after the petitioner had left 2012(5) Mh.L.J.36;

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."

In the light of the discussion herein above and in particular, the observations of this Court in para 12 of the judgment in case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab (supra), we are of the opinion that the application of the petitioner should not have been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has left the school. It is open for the authority concerned to consider the application in the light of the provision of Para 26.3 and 26.4 of the S.S. Code and give reasons while accepting or rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, the communication dated 02.09.2015 at Exh.D - page 16 of the compilation of petition is set aside. The application of the petitioner is restored to its original file. The respondent No.3 - Education Officer is directed to decide the application of the petitioner in the light of above mentioned provisions of the S.S. Code, as expeditiously as possible; however, within a period of three months from today, on its own merits. Petition stands disposed of.

(P.R. BORA, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J) kadam/