SAURAV NAMDEV BHOSLE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
WP/12187/2025 · 2025-11-28
Shri Hiten S Venegavkar, Smt Vibha Kankanwadi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61829 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 61829 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12187 OF 2025 Saurav Namdev Bhosle VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others Mr. K. S. Solanke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for respondent-State CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 28th November, 2025 PER COURT :-
1. Present petition has been filed for correction of Birthdate of the petitioner in the school record. The petitioner submits that his correct birthdate is “29.04.2007” however, in the school record it has been wrongly mentioned as “29.08.2007”. The petitioner has filed Birth Certificate (Exhibit B) wherein his birthdate is mentioned as
“29.04.2007”. Respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 25.08.2025 rejected the application on the ground that the the petitioner is not taking education in the school. The petitioner is relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR OnLine 2019 Bombay 1055].
2. We are coming across many such orders, in spite of the decision of this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra), stating that the 9-WP-12187-2025.odt 1 of 2 2025:BHC-AUG:33237-DB
applicant/petitioner is not taking education in the school and, therefore, the authority has no jurisdiction or power to make changes in the school record. While allowing the present petition, we direct respondent No.1 to apprise the concerned authorities about the Full Bench decision of this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra) and not to reject the applications on the ground that the person is not taking education in the school. The interpretation in respect of Rule 26.4 of Secondary School Code has been interpreted by this Court and that interpretation is binding on all the authorities. Even after apprising the authorities by respondent No. 1, if we come across such orders, then this Court will consider such orders as contempt.
3. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
4. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue order and grant the proposal forwarded by respondent No. 3 in respect of change in the birthdate of petitioner in the school record within a period of 15 days from today. (Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) B. S. Joshi 9-WP-12187-2025.odt 2 of 2