Manoj Yashwant Sonawane v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1820 OF 2016 Manoj Ramesh Sonawane, Age-29 years, Occu:Student, R/o-Yahwant Nagar, Bhadgaon, Tq-Bhadgaon, Dist-Jalgaon.

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1) State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban and Rural Development, Mantralaya-32,

2) Director, Higher and Technical Education, Central Building, Near Sasson Hospital, Pune,

3) Zilla Parishad Jalgaon, Through Education Officer, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon,

4) The Principal, District Vocational Education Institute, Near G.S. Ground, Govt. Technical School Campus, Jalgaon, Dist-Jalgaon,

5) The Principal, Jr. College New English School, M.C.V.C. Bhadgaon, Tq-Bhadgaon, Dist-Jalgaon,

6) The Principal, Zilla Parishad School, Tongaon, Tq-Bhadgaon, Dist-Jalgaon.

...RESPONDENTS ...

Mr. Girish Nagori Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. M.S. Sonawane Advocate for Respondent No.3. ...

CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER R.M. BORDE, J.] :

1.

Leave to correct the name of the Petitioner. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage.

3.

Claim of the Petitioner for making

corrections in the school record has been turned down by the Education Officer only on the ground that the Petitioner has left the school long back and as such no corrections can be made.

4.

This Court has already considered the issue in the matter of Vilas Dattatraya Ransubhe vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013(1) Bom.C.R. 666, and held that in view of the provisions of Secondary School Code, the powers are vested with the Education Officer to direct corrections in the school record even after the pupil has left school. Considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid Judgment, the decision taken by the Education Officer and communicated to the Head Master of the school on 28th October 2015 is not sustainable.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the Education Officer states that the Education Officer would consider the proposal in accordance

with law.

6.

In this view of the matter, the communication issued by the Education Officer on 28th October 2015 rejecting the proposal of the Petitioner for effecting correction in school record, is quashed and set aside and the Education Officer is directed to reconsider the proposal, tendered by the Petitioner through Head Master of the school, to effect necessary corrections in school record, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of THREE MONTHS from today.

7.

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. [A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.] asb/FEB16