- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5976/2010 Popat Trimbak Palve, age 35 yrs., occu.nil, r/o Kolhar Tq.Pathardi Dist.Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 3] Head Master, Shri Anand Secondary and Higher Secondary School at Chinchondi. Tq.Pathardi Dist.Ahmednagar. ...Respondents... ..... Shri K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri P.R. Nangre, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 24.09.2010 - 2 - PER COURT : 1] Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner has filed present petition for direction to the respondent nos.2 & 3 to correct the Secondary and Higher Secondary school records as to petitioner’s caste as Hindu Wanjari instead of Hindu Laman. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, it has been stated that though the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the respondent no.2 – Education Officer, he has rejected the same on the ground that since the petitioner had left the school, the entry regarding caste can not be changed. 3] The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4264/2009 vide judgment and order dated 15.1.2010, relying on the Government resolution dated 16.3.1983, has held that correction in the school record can be carried out by the school on receipt of sanction of appropriate authority. In the present case, since the school has already forwarded the proposal to the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2, however, has rejected the same. We find that the decision of the respondent no.2 – Education Officer in rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been made in ignorance of the Government resolution dated 16.3.1983. We, therefore, allow the petition in following terms. - 3 - [1] The order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the Education Officer – respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner to make fresh proposal within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent no.3 is directed to submit fresh proposal to the respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks thereafter. The respondent no. 2- Education Officer is directed to reconsider the proposal regarding change in the entry of caste of the petitioner as forwarded by the respondent no.3 within a period of two months from the receipt of proposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. [2] In the event the approval is granted by the Education Officer, necessary entry would be made by the respondent no.3 in the school record. [3] We clarify that we have not observed anything on the merits of the matter and the respondent no.2 would decide the proposal on its own merits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c2491049