##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-NAG:15088-DB

29.WP.825.2025.odt 1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2025

Mangesh S/o. Kishor Suryawanshi

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

__________________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. Vivek Awchat, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. A.B. Badar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. H.V. Dhage, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.M. Kulsange, Advocate for

Respondent No.4.

Mr. S.P. Rajurkar, Advocate h/f. Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for

Respondent No.5.

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATE : 24 ^th DECEMBER, 2025.

On 11^th December, 2025, following order was

passed:

“Heard.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking

correction in marksheets, Secondary School Certificate

and Higher Secondary Certificate issued by Divisional

Secretary, Amravati Division of Maharashtra Secondary

Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,

Pune.

3. Name of mother of petitioner is mentioned

as ‘Seema’, whereas her name is ‘Bhimabai’. The

certificates were issued in the years 2008 and 2010

respectively. In the school records, name of the mother

is not mentioned.

4. We were informed that the name, Seema is

reflected in Board’s certificate, as communicated by

respondent No.4 – School. The petitioner has then

submitted various documents to respondent No.2 and

made a request to change the name of his mother to

Bhimabai. Accordingly, respondent No.4 issued

communication dated 11.08.2023 to respondent No.5 –

Board, saying that it has no objection if the name of

petitioner’s mother is changed from Seema to Bhimabai.

29.WP.825.2025.odt 2/4

The necessary documents were annexed with the letter.

5. It appears that similar such letter was issued

by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2. It is dated

28.08.2023 (Annexure 7). The documents, however,

were not supplied to respondent No.2. In the letter, a

reference is made to oral direction given by respondent

No.5 to make necessary correction in the school record

and to forward his proposal and if such proposal is

forwarded, appropriate action could be taken.

6. Respondent No.2 has referred to Rule 26.4

of the Secondary School Code to deny the relief saying

that as per the said rule, correction in School record is

permissible only till the student is taking education in

the school. In the present case, since the petitioner has

left the School, correction could not be made.

7. The question, therefore, is whether there is

an absolute bar to make correction in the school record

or other such record in terms of Rule 26.4 of The

Secondary School Code? The question has been

answered by this Court in Arshad Khalid Vs. State of

Maharashtra [2012 (4) Mh.L.J 646]. The petitioner

therein sought correction in his first name in the School

Leaving Certificate, passing certificate and marksheet,

etc. The High Court allowed the petition. The Deputy

Director of Education, Mumbai was directed to consider

the prayer/request of the petitioner for correction in his

first name in following terms:

“8. The learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 2 and

3 pressed into service unreported judgment of this

Court in the case of Azam Khan s/o Dagd Khan

Pathan (supra) to contend that, such correction in

the first name by the petitioner in the school record

cannot be entertained once candidate has left the

school. In our opinion, said argument is devoid of

any merits. In case of Azam khan s/o Dagd Khan

Pathan (supra), in the facts of that case, this Court in

para-7 of the judgment noticed that the school

leaving certificate which was placed on record of the

petitioner therein is dated 10-06-1972. The

petitioner therein did not produce either school

leaving certificate issued by the previous school or

the record on the basis of which, the original entries

were effected in the general register/leaving

certificate. The only basis on which the petitioner

sought correction, is the duplicate