Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DAILYLAW 3594 (BOM)

SANJIV MHALAPPA CHENDKE AND ORS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

WP/6823/2019 · 2026-08-24

Public Interest Litigationbody2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 27-wp 6823-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6823 OF 2019 Sanjiv Mhalappa Chendke And Others .. Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others .. Respondents Smt. Priyendra G. Sontakke, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4. Mr. S. D. Kaldate, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026. PER COURT :- 1. Heard for some time. 2. The learned advocate Mr. Kaldate appearing for respondent – Zilla Parishad submits that rule 15 of the Secondary Schools Code-2019 Appendix Six Rules And Procedure For Change In Names, Surnames, Caste/Sub-Caste And Dates of Birth of Pupils Reading in Schools provides for an appeal before the concerned Deputy Director. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners justifies filing of the petition stating that the communication dated 01.08.2015 which 2026:BHC-AUG:38636-DB 2 27-wp 6823-2019.odt is under challenge cannot be said to be an order as it is not supported by reasons and discussions. Therefore, the remedy of appeal cannot be resorted to. 4. This Court has seen the order dated 01.08.2015 which clearly states that no change can be made in the record of the school. It is stated that the caste is written as per the information given by the parents while taking education. On the information there is signature/thumb mark of the parents of the students. In the entire record the caste shown of the petitioners is as it was stated while admitting the petitioners in the school. It is clearly seen that the impugned communication dated 01.08.2015 is an order passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv. 5. Considering that, this Court finds that, since the impugned order is subject to challenge in an appeal, we deem it appropriate to direct the parties to file an appeal before the concerned authorities in view of rule 15. 6. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Needless to say that, time prosecuting in this writ petition 3 27-wp 6823-2019.odt shall be excluded while considering the period of limitation, if any. 8. The petitioners to approach the authorities within three weeks from today. If such appeal is filed, the same be decided within eight weeks thereafter. ( JITENDRA JAIN, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.