950-WP-4563-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 950 WRIT PETITION NO. 4563 OF 2025 PRITI MOHAN GHUSAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS .… Mr. K. S. Solanke, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the Respondent – State .… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 03.04.2025 PER COURT :- . The petitioner is seeking correction of the school record and is aggrieved by the communication whereby the respondent Education Officer has refused/rejected his application on the ground of he having already left the school and inability to exercise the powers under Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code. 2. Though the Education Officer could not have directly entertained the application of the petitioner which is contrary to 1 of 2 2025:BHC-AUG:10429-DB (( 2 )) 950-WP-4563-2025 the mandate as laid down in Appendix - VI and the request could have only been to the concerned Headmaster, the Education Officer seems to have overlook the parameters laid down in the case of Janabai D/o. Himmatrao Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769. In these circumstances, the impugned order/communication is not sustainable in law. 3. The writ petition is allowed partly with a direction to the petitioner to submit an appropriate application to the concerned school and if it is any such application is made, the school concerned shall forward the proposal to the Education Officer, who shall thereafter consider it on its own merits and in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Janabai. The decision shall be taken by the Education Officer within six weeks after receipt of the proposal. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] SMS 2 of 2