← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/698/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Neelam D/O. Naresh Chouksey v. State Of Maha., Dept. Of Education (Higher Secondary), Through Its Secretary, Mumbai And Others

2017-02-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

0802wp698.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2016 (Neelam d/o Naresh Chouksey vs. State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher Secondary thr. its Secretary & Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

FEBRUARY 08, 2017.

Heard Shri Alok Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. Tembhare, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2.

Perused the School Register of Pradhnapith Balakmandir Ucha Prathmik Convent School, Kamptee. The register produced does not mention name of the School anywhere and Sr. Nos. also appear to be altered. After Sr. No. 369, Sr. No. 370 was written in English and later on it has been altered to as Sr. No. 380. Number thereafter has been corrected to read as Sr. No. 381. Name of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 380. The entire entry mentioning name of the student is in one ink. The date of birth appears to have been added in different ink. It has been also mentioned in words. The register mentions that the petitioner was admitted to School on 20.07.1989 in 1st standard. Thus, after completing four years of age, the

0802wp698.16 petitioner is shown to have been admitted in 1st standard. The original School Leaving Certificate issued by any School, has not been made available for perusal of this Court.

3.

The petitioner has entered the services with recorded date of birth 02.05.1983 that is now sought to be altered to 02.06.1985.

4.

As disputed questions arise, we are not in a position to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the claim being made.

5.

Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum where such questions can be resolved, we dispose of the present writ petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE *GS.