1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3861 of 2010 Abasaheb Nandkumar Pawar Age 29 years, Occ. Labour R/o. Matoshri Nagar, Line NO.2 House No.4-34-185/1, Pundlik Nagar, Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1] State of Maharashtra 2] Head Mistress of the School Indiara Primary School at Baijipura Lane No.30, Aurangabad. 3] Sub-Divisional Officer (SETU) Collector Office, Aurangabad. 4] Primary Education Officer Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Respondents Mr. P.S. Waghmare, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for the respondent No.4 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ.. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J.] : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 1st/9th October, 2009, passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla parishad, Aurangabad, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitoiner for changing the entry with regard to caste in the school record. 3] The petitioner was taking education in the Indiara Primary School, Indira Nagar at Aurangabad. In his school record, his caste came to be recorded as Maratha (Gurav). Noticing that the petitioner belongs to only Gurav caste and not Maratha Gurav caste, the petitioner applied for change in the entry with regard to the caste in the school records. 4] Since the application was not decided the petitioner was required to approach this court by way of Writ Petition No. 1159/2009. In the said petition, this court, vide order dated 31st July, 2009, directed the respondent authorities to decide the application within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order. In pursuance to the said order, the respondent Education Officer has rejected the application on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to do so. Hence, the present petition. 5] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issue is no more res-intergra. The Division Bench of this court, vide order dated 15th January, 2010, in Writ Petition NO. 4264/2009, relying on the Govt. Resolution bearing No. GAC – 1083/89/SE-2, dated 16th March, 1983 and clauses 12 to 14 of Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code, has held that even after a student leaves the school, the Education Officer has an authority to consider the application. It has been held that the application has to be routed through the concerned school and thereafter appropriate orders are required to be passed by the Education Officer. In that view of the matter, the order impugned which states that the Education Officer has no jurisdiction after the student has left the school, is not sustainable in law. 3 6] In ordinary course, we would have direted the school to again submit a proposal to the Education Officer and directed the Education Officer to take a decision in accordance with law. However, we have perused the record. All the documents pertaining to the petitioner's father and petitioner's mother show that they belong to “Gurav Hindu” caste. It is further to be noted that there is no caste by name “Maratha Gurav”. In that view of the matter, we find that instead of again requiring the petitoiner to undergo the procedure of applying to the school and the school further forwarding the proposal to the Education Officer and the Education Officer again to sit over it again, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the petition. 7] It is further to be noted that it is not disputed by anyone before us that the petitioner, in fact, belongs to “Gurav” caste. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed by directing the respondent NO.2 to change the entry pertaining to the petitioner's case from “Maratha Gurav” to “Gurav Hindu”. It is further clarified that the observations made hereinabove, are limited for the purpose of directing the School to effect change with respect to caste. In the event, if for any other purpose, the petitioner's caste claim is required to be validated by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, the said Committee shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove and would consider the claim of the petitioner on its own merit. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs. [R.M. BORDE ,J] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp