1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.194 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6051 OF 2009. Ashok s/o Ramji Pandit - PETITIONER VERSUS Govind s/o Babu Khurange - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.RR Karpe,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VB Ghatge,AGP for State; Mr.DV Soman, Adv. For HSC Board. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 26th November,2010. PER COURT: 1) Mr.Soman appears for Mah.HSC Board, has yet to collect copy of the petition with its annexures. 2) Heard. Writ Petition No.6051 of 2009 was moved by the petitioner and by orders dated 27th January, 2010, the learned Division Bench directed the respondent no.2 therein (Education Officer (Secondary) to take expeditious decision, preferably within four months from 27.1.2010. 2 There is reply from the respondent no.2/Education Officer dated 20th February, 2010. 3) The grievance of the petitioner is, the reply does not depict correct position as it is replica of earlier communication, which invited in WP No.6051/2009. The Counsel submits, at least coherent reasons should have been assigned while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. 4) Indeed, in the above referred writ petition the respondent no.2 was directed to take decision expeditiously. The Respondent No.2 from his reply (page 26) has considered the documents and observed that the petitioner has passed 10th Std. Examination in October-1986 and the legal inhibition for carrying correction in the date of birth. 5) In the reply filed by the Respondent No. 2-Education Officer, a startling disclosure is made in paragraph 5. If the date of birth of the petitioner to be treated as 25.12.1973, and his date of admission in the school being 13.7.1974, it would amount that the petitioner was admitted to 1st Std. When he was barely seven months’ old. The deponent also pointed that in the year 1985 when the petitioner appeared in 10th Std. Examination, and his date of birth is construed as 25.12.1973, he could be only 12 years. 6) The communication referred above dated 3 20th February, 2010 being within the parameters, as were directed in the subject writ petition, I do not find any error or contemptuous approach on the part of the respondent no.2. The petition lacks merit, dismissed. Respondent discharged. The other legal remedies available to the petitioner are left open. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/