JUDGMENT :

P.R. Bora, J.

This writ petition has been referred to the Full Bench by order dated 30th June, 2017 by the Division Bench (Coram : Dr. Manjula Chellur, C.J. and Mr. R.M. Borde, J.). The questions referred by the Division Bench read as under:

(A) Whether an application seeking alteration, change or correction in the name, surname, date of birth, caste, or other entries entered in the General Register, including correction in spelling of name, surname, date of birth, caste, as recorded in the General Register, shall be entertained by or on behalf of the pupil who has left the school and the change in the aforesaid entries, is necessitated for the purposes like securing an admission to another educational institution and the School Leaving Certificate is relied upon as an evidence for name, surname, caste, date of birth, etc.

(B) Whether the view adopted by the Division Bench in the matters of (i) Swapneel s/o Maroti Sonwale Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2013) 6 MhLJ 400; (ii) in the matter of Vilas s/o Dattatraya Ransubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2013) 1 MhLJ 851; and (iii) Arshad Khalid Jamal Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2012) 4 MhLJ 646, deserves to be upheld or whether the view adopted by the Division Bench at Nagpur in Special Civil Application No.1048 of 1971, decided on 5th April, 1973 (Captain Anil Vasantrao Bhat & another Vs. Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education, Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur & another), is a correct view.

(C) Whether the change, sought to be requested by the petitioner, is required to be consistent with Clauses 26.3 and 26.4 read with Appendix Six of the Secondary Schools Code, meaning thereby, bonafide cases where wrong spelling of a word or an obvious mistake of the type mentioned in Clause 26.3, can only be directed to be corrected.

2. We have heard Mr. S.S. Rathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.N. Sabnis, who has assisted this Court and Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Govt. Pleader.

3. Mr. S.S. Rathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the application, as mentioned in issue No.(A), enumerated above, can be entertained even after the pupil has left the school. He took us through the provisions of Clauses 26.3 & 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code ( S.S. Code for short), and specifically to the later part of Clauses 26.4 of the S.S. Code to buttress his submission that the language permitted entertaining of an application for change or correction as contemplated therein, even on behalf of a pupil, who has left the school and though Clause 26.4 contemplated that the same could be done for the purposes like an admission to another educational institution, that was only an indicator of the nature of the purposes, which could be several, and thus, could not be interpreted in a restrictive sense, so as to restrict the nature of purposes to only those as mentioned in Clause 26.4 of the S.S. Code. He further argued that Clauses 26.3 & 26.4 of the S.S. Code ought to be considered in a wider perspective and in a beneficial manner, for the benefits of the student/person applying for such a change as putting a restrictive meaning would result in genuine persons being denied their rightful claim.

4. Mr. Rathi, learned Counsel then invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 5 MhLJ 36 and specifically to paragraphs No. 6 to 9 to contend that the learned Division Bench has held that the instructions contained in para 26.4 of the S.S. Code to be directory in nature and not mandatory, in light of which he contended that the application for change, as contemplated by Clause 26.3 could be made at any time, without any restriction as to a time frame whatsoever. He further contended that the judgment in the case of Vil