{1} wp1126910.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11269 OF 2010 1 Hari s/o Vishwas Sonune, age: 18 years, Occ: Education, R/o Palaskheda (Murtad), Tq.Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. 2 Vitthal s/o Pundalik Sonune, age: 19 years, Occ: Education, R/o Palaskheda (Murtad), Tq.Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Respondents Ms.Meghana V. Reddy, advocate for petitioners Mr. K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 16 th December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.): 1 The petitioners claim to be belonging to `Maratha’ caste. However, in the school record pertaining to petitioners, {2} wp1126910.odt entry in respect of their caste is recorded as `Kunbi’. The petitioners, therefore, tendered an application to the school authorities for submitting the proposal to the Deputy Director of Education for effecting correction in their school record. Accordingly, the proposal was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education with favourable recommendations by the school authorities to effect corrections in the school record. 2 It also appears that on earlier occasion, petitioners presented a writ petition bearing W.P.No.923/2010 seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to effect necessary correction in respect of their caste recorded in the school record. However, while disposing of the petition on 08.02.2010, this Court permitted the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities with appropriate application and the concerned authorities were directed to consider and decide the proposal in accordance with law. 3 It appears that thereafter the matter was taken up for consideration by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. However, the Deputy Director of Education, on consideration of provisions of Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, has refused to accord approval for effecting necessary correction in respect of caste of the petitioners recorded in their school record. {3} wp1126910.odt 4 The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Vinod s/o Bapurao Singewar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others (Writ Petition No.4264 of 2009) decided on 15.01.2010, has held that, in view of the Appendix Six of the Secondary Schools Code and the Government Resolution dated 16th March 1983, the Education Officer is competent to consider the request in respect of effecting change in the school record of the student. 5 The Deputy Director of Education is an officer higher in hierarchy than the Education Officer and is surely competent to consider the request of the petitioners. It was an error on the part of the Deputy Director to turn down the application presented by petitioners for effecting correction in their school record, taking recourse to rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code. Considering the view adopted by this Court in the judgment referred to above, it was incumbent upon the Respondent No.2 to consider the application presented by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon. 6 It is also necessary to record here that the concerned school has already forwarded a proposal with favourable recommendations to the Deputy Director of Education for effecting necessary correction. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that the school record pertaining to the fathers of the petitioners records entry in respect of caste as `Maratha’. The application, {4} wp1126910.odt tendered by the petitioners to the Deputy Director of Education, therefore, ought to have been considered favourably. 7 In this view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by Respondent No.2 – Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, dated 13th September, 2010, are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 – Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, is directed to consider the application/proposal tendered by the petitioners favourably and issue necessary directions for effecting corrections in the school record of the petitioners in accordance with law. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks from today. 8 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1126910