WP 278/2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.278/2011 Vilas Ramrao Bahirwal, age 26 yrs., occu.student, r/o Old Dhanora Road, Mauli Colony, Beed. Tq. & Dist.Beed. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Dy.Director of Education, Aurangabad. 3] The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. Dist.Beed. 4] The Champawati High School, Through its Head Master, Nagar Road, Beed. 5] The Zilla Parishad High School, through its Head Master, at Georai. Tq.Georai Dist.Beed. 6] The K.S.K. College, through its Principal, Shivaji Nagar, Beed. 7] The Shriram Junior & Senior College, at & post Kada Tq.Aasti Dist.Bed. 8] The Anandrao Dhonde College, Kada Tq.Kada Dist.Beed. ...Respondent... ..... WP 278/2011 - 2 - Shri V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri H.K. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no.3. Shri G.K. Thigale, Advocate for respondent no.4. Respondent nos.5 & 6 served. Shri B.T. Bodkhe, Advocate for respondent nos.7 & 8. ..... CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE: 15.03.2011 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents and more particularly to respondent no.3 to correct his caste in the school record. In the school record, his caste is mentioned as "Rajput Bhamta". The petitioner seeks correction as "Gujar" instead of "Rajput Bhamta". Respondent no.3 has rejected the petitioner's application seeking such prayer vide order dated 18.9.2010. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 11.10.2010 in Shaikh Nawaj Jamal Sab V/s the State of WP 278/2011 - 3 - Maharashtra & others in Writ Petition No.5027/2010 and submitted that the Education Officer did not take into consideration the Government resolution dated 16.3.1983 while considering the petitioner's application for seeking correction of his caste in the school record. We have perused the order passed by this Court dated 11.10.2010. It appears that in similar circumstances, this Court issued direction to the Education Officer to consider the petitioner's application for correction of the school record in the light of the Government resolution dated 16.3.1983. Paragraph no.5 in the impugned order dated 11.10.2010 reads thus: "The respondent no.4 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for correction of the school record of the petitioner by following procedure prescribed by the Government resolution dated 16th of March, 1983 read with Appendix Six of the Secondary Schools Code. Subject to grant of sanction by the appropriate authority, the school record of the petitioner may be corrected in accordance with the said provisions. The proposal be submitted to the appropriate authority for grant of sanction, within four weeks from today. On receipt of the said proposal, the appropriate authority shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than eight weeks from its receipt on its own merits in accordance with law. The appropriate authority to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the event, an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the authority shall record reasons therefor." WP 278/2011 - 4 - Having over-all facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the following order will meet the ends of justice. 4] Respondent no.3 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner made vide letter dated 13.9.2010 for correction of the school record of the petitioner by following the procedure prescribed by the Government resolution dated 16.3.1983 read with Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code. Subject to grant of sanction by appropriate authority, the school record of the petitioner may be corrected in accordance with the said provisions. Respondent no.3 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall pass speaking order if he is not inclined to grant the application made by the petitioner. The Education Officer shall decide the petitioner's claim afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner to produce copy of this order before the concerned Education Officer within a period of two weeks from today. With these observations, Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) ndk/153112