( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5081 OF 2010 Priyanka d/o. Baburao Sontakke .. Petitioner Age. 19 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Bhendegaon, Tq. Wasmat, District Hingoli. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. 3. The Head Master, Shri Siddheshwar Vidyalaya, Vasmatnagar, District Hingoli. 4. The Maharashtra Health Science University, Nashik, Through Registrar. 5. The Principal, Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha’s Auryved Mahavidyalaya, Paithan Road, Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad – 431 002. Mr. A.S. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. S.B. Kakade, Advocate for respondent No.5. ( 2 ) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 28.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to grant permission to respondent No. 3 for making necessary correction in the date of birth of the petitioner as per order dated 31st December, 2009, passed by Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that since the petitioner is no more student in the school, respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to do so. ( 3 ) 4. The petitioner was required to approach this Court at earlier point of time by way of Writ Petition No. 1740 of 2009, to seek directions to the Education Officer (Primary) to pass appropriate orders insofar as entry in the school record of the petitioner pertaining to her primary education is concerned. The said petition was allowed and accordingly sanction was granted by the Education Officer (Primary) to the school to make correction regarding entry pertaining to date of birth of the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, we find that the approach of the Education Officer (Secondary), in refusing to make correction when as a matter of fact said correction has already been made in the record of primary school where the petitioner has studied, is not sustainable in law. 6. We, therefore, allow the petition by directing respondent No.2 to correct the entry pertaining to date of birth of the petitioner as corrected in the primary school of the petitioner, as per directions of Education Officer (Primary). ( 4 ) 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/wp5081.10