(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9482 OF 2010 Rajbahadur s/o. Jagannath Kabirpanthi, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Nawabpura, Kabir Mandir, Juna Mondha, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 4. The Principal, Saraswati Bhuvan Arts & Commerce College, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16th July 2009, passed by respondent no.3, refusing to correct entries in the school record of the petitioner, on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to do so. It is the contention of the petitioner, that caste of the petitioner is incorrectly recorded as Kabirpanthi in the school record, whereas he belongs to "Lodh" which is classified as Other Backward Class. 3. The application is rejected basically on the ground (3) that the respondent no.3 has no authority to change the entries after the student has left the school. 4. This Court, vide judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 704 of 2010, dated 8th February 2010, has held that as per Government Resolution dated 16th March 1983, read with Appendix Six of the Secondary Schools Code, the appropriate authority is free to consider the question of grant of sanction on case to case basis. It has further been held that the authority is bestowed with the power to accord sanction which obviously imposes duty on the authority to consider the proposal justly and reasonably. 5. In that view of the matter, we find that the order of respondent no.3, that he has no jurisdiction to grant sanction for change of entries pertaining to caste column, is not sustainable. 6. We, therefore, allow the petition by permitting the petitioner to make fresh application through respondent no.4. The application shall be forwarded by respondent no.4, to respondent no.3, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt thereof. On receipt of the application by respondent no. 3, the same shall be decided on its own merits, by respondent no. 3, in the light of the observations made herein above. (4) 7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( K.K. TATED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9482