( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3309 OF 2010 1. Vilas s/o. Bajirao Bhaware, .. Petitioners Age. 20 years, Occ. Education, R/o. 26/10, M-2, CIDCO, Shriramnagar, Aurangabad. 2. Kailash s/o. Bajirao Bhaware, Age. 23 years, Occ. Education, R/o. 26/10, M-2, CIDCO, Shriramnagar, Aurangabad. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 3. The Head Master, New School, Raghunath Nagar, Tq. Gangapur, District – Aurangabad. Mr. U.R. Awati h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar h/f. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 28.10.2010 ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 23rd March, 2010, passed by respondent No.2, refusing to correct entries in the school record of the petitioners on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to do so. It is contention of the petitioners that though caste of father and mother is recorded as “Badgujar”, same is incorrectly recorded as “Maratha” in the case of the petitioners. 3. The application is rejected basically on the ground that respondent No.2 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 Feburary, 2010, has held that as per Government Resolution dated 16th March, 1983 read with Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code, the authority is vested with the powers to sanction the corrections. ( 3 ) 5. In that view of the matter, we find that the order of respondent No.2 that it has no jurisdiction to grant sanction to change of entries pertaining to caste column is not sustainable. 6. We, therefore, allow the petition by permitting the petitioners to make fresh application through respondent No. 3. The application would be forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, within a period of two weeks of receipt thereof. On receipt of the application by respondent No.2, the same shall be decided on its merits by respondent No.2 in the light of observations made herein above. 7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. [A.A. SAYED,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/wp3309.10