Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.
Dhananjay Fulchand Khomane - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8533 of 2021
Decided On : 09-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner aggrieved by order refusing correction. (Para 2) |
| 2. board lacks jurisdiction under regulation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. writ petition allowed; order quashed. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard both the sides finally. Rule.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent no. 3 - Board, dated 02 November 2022, refusing to correct the certificate and marks memo issued pursuant to the order passed by the Education Officer in exercise of the powers under the clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code. The reason being assigned is questioning the legality of the correction made by the school in the original record pursuant to the order of the Education Officer, and by referring to Rule 59 (3) of the MAHARASHTRA SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARDS REGULATIONS , 1977 (for short 'the Regulation of 1977').
3. Having heard both the sides, it would be suffice to observe that the issues being raised by the respondent no. 3 - Board, are no more res integra, in view of the decision of this Court in the matter of Achari Abhijeet Mohanan v. The State of Maharashtra and others, in Writ Petition No. 1254/2021, dated 07 September 2022, to which one of us (Mangesh S. Patil, J.) was a member.
4. It has been specifically laid down that once the Education Officer passes an order under clause 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, and the school record is corrected, the board has no power and jurisdiction to question it by resorting to Rule 59 (3) of the Regulation of 1977.
5. When admittedly, the original school record has been corrected pursuant to the order of Education Officer passed under clause 26.4 of Secondary School Code, the board is legally obliged to follow the course.
6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 3 - Board shall, in accordance with the order passed by the Education Officer and the corrected school record, issue fresh mark memo and passing certificate to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three weeks.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
AI
The education board cannot contest corrections made by the Education Officer under the Secondary School Code, reaffirming established jurisdictional boundaries.
The court established that corrections of obvious mistakes in school records are permissible under Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, and misinterpretation of these rules by authorities can lead....
Date of birth correction - Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act of 1969 is a statutory certificate, which has very high evidentiary value and respondent....
Central laws regarding record corrections prevail over state regulations, permitting date of birth amendments in educational records.
The court established that the three-year limitation period for requesting corrections in certificates issued by the Board is mandatory and must be adhered to, regardless of the circumstances surroun....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Board is empowered to correct an erroneous result within six months from its declaration, as per Rule 102(2) of the Maharashtra Secondary ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
