Bombay High Court

DINESH SHRIPATRAO SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The Court held that the recorded date of birth is an obvious mistake and must be corrected under the provisions of the Maharashtra Secondary School Code.

Summary

The petitioner, Dinesh Suryawanshi, sought correction of his date of birth in the Zilla Parishad Primary School record, claiming the entry of 15‑06‑1968 was a clerical error made at admission, while his actual birth date is 15‑09‑1970. An earlier attempt in 1999 to rectify the error remained unattended, and a Gazette notification in 2024 confirmed the correct date, but the school refused correction citing Clause 26.4 of the Maharashtra Secondary School Code. The petitioner argued that the discrepancy of only 145 days between his and his elder brother's recorded birth dates constituted an "obvious mistake" permissible for correction under Clause 26.3/26.4. The respondents contended that such a correction is not allowed after the student has left school and that service rules should govern any benefit. The Court examined the statutory provisions and prior judgments, concluding that the entry was indeed an obvious mistake and must be corrected, while noting that service rules remain applicable for any advantage. Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the writ, quashed the impugned order, and directed the school to amend the birth date in its records.

Issues considered

Whether a correction of date of birth in school records after the student has left school is permissible under Clause 26.3/26.4 of the Maharashtra Secondary School Code as an 'obvious mistake'.
Whether the petitioner’s service rules limit his right to obtain such correction.
Whether the impugned order of the Education Officer (Primary) denying correction is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Secondary School Code — s. 26.3, 26.4

Subjects

birth date correction
school records
obvious mistake
secondary school code
writ petition
education law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7997-DB

wp-1740-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.1740 OF 2026

Dinesh Shripatrao Suryawanshi
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Vrundawan Shrushti, Kanha-C,
Flat No.1101, Narhe, Pune. .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400052.

2. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv (Osmanabad) .. Respondents

…
Mr. Ameya Sabnis, Advocate and Mr. Pranav Dhakne, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for respondent No.1/State.
…

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2026

ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-

. Present petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order

dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Education Officer (Primary) i.e.

respondent No.2 and for direction to respondent No.2 to give the

directions to correct the school record of the petitioner.

[1]
wp-1740-2026.odt

2. The petitioner contends that his actual birth date is 15.09.1970. He

was admitted to Zilla Parishad Primary School, Supatgaon, Taluka

Omerga, District Dharashiv. At the time of admission, the father of the

petitioner submitted incorrect information regarding the date of his birth.

After it was realized that the petitioner’s father had given incorrect birth

date, the application was submitted by the petitioner in the year 1999 for

correction of birth date, however, the same remained unattended and no

action was taken. The father of the petitioner did not pursue the said

matter further. Thereafter, there was attempt by the petitioner to find out

his birth date and it was informed by the Village Panchayat of Madaj,

which is the birth place of the petitioner. He tried to collect the

information from the Panchayat office, however, it was told that record is

not available. In fact, the birth date of the elder brother of the petitioner

is 22.01.1968 and the petitioner’s birth date as per school record is

15.06.1968, which gives a gap of only 145 days between the date of his

elder brother or that of the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore got

the birth date corrected by making the publication in Government

Gazette in the year 2024, however, when he attempted to make changes

in the school record, it has been refused. Hence, the petitioner has

approached this Court.

[2]
wp-1740-2026.odt

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the ground on

which the application of the petitioner came to be rejected is Clause 26.4

of the Secondary School Code, however, in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur

Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019(6) Mh.L.J. 769), the Full Bench of this

Court has very much clarified that a change even though it falls within

the scope of expression “obvious mistake” will have to be tested on the

basis of material available as well as probative value of such material and

it has been further observed that :-

“…Thus a conjoint reading of the various sentences in Clauses 26.3
and 26.4, with each other, leads us to the following conclusion :

(a) an application for alteration in the entries in the
General Register is permissble, with the previous
permission of the appropriate authority at any time when
the pupil is attending the school.

(b) No application for alteration in the figure of the
date of birth is permissible, after the student has left
secondary school, except correction in the nature of
obvious mistakes as indicated in Clause 26.3 i.e. of a
nature where the date of a particular month which does
not exist in the calendar and likewise.

(c) An application for change in the spelling of the
name, or for that matter in the name, surname or caste
are errors which fall within the category of obvious
mistakes, and thus can be made, even after the student
has left school in light of the language of Clause 26.3.

[3]
wp-1740-2026.odt

(d) For the purposes like an admission to another
educational institution, in cases of obvious mistakes as
prescribed in Clause 26.4, a change/correction in the
school leaving certificate, so as to make the entry
consistent with the corresponding entries in the General
Register of the school is permissible, which in fact is in
consonance with (c) above.”

Further, it has been observed that, “...It is further apparent that any

change as permissible as contemplated by Clause 26.4, is only for the

purposes of securing admission to another educational institution, in

which process, the School Leaving Certificate is relied upon as an

evidence for the name, surname, caste, date of birth etc and not

otherwise….” It is also held that for the errors which fall within the

category of ‘obvious mistakes’, can be made, even after the student has

left the school in the light of language of Clause 26.3, in the manner as

indicated by Appendix Six in the forms as prescribed in the Secondary

School Code.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that when there is

difference of only 145 days in the birth date of the elder brother and the

petitioner, the obvious mistake ought to have been corrected by

respondent No.2.

4. Learned AGP relies on the decision in Govind Ramrao Solanke Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and others, [Writ Petition No.8620 of 2022

[4]
wp-1740-2026.odt

decided on 16.09.2022], wherein it has been observed that the Full

Bench in paragraph No.39(b) of Janabai Himmatrao Thakur (Supra)

held that, “No application for alteration in the figure of date of birth is

permissible, after the student has left secondary school, except correction

in the nature of ‘obvious mistakes’ as indicated in Clause 26.3 i.e. of a

nature where the date of a particular month which does not exist in the

calendar and likewise.” Under the similar facts i.e. change of entire date

of birth it was held in this case that it is not in the nature of obvious

mistake and, therefore, it cannot be entertained. It was also submitted by

the learned AGP that since the petitioner is serving in Zilla Parishad and

he is now 55 years of age, he would take advantage of such correction.

When, in fact, as per the service rules, he should make such application

to the appropriate authorities within a period of five years from the date

of entry in service, the attempt by the petitioner is for obvious reasons

and it is not even supported by any authentic document. The petition

deserves to be dismissed.

5. Here, it is to be noted that it appears that petitioner’s father made

made an attempt in the year 1999 to get the birth date of the petitioner

corrected. The petitioner has produced copy of the affidavit of his father,

however, whether he had made the application with the concerned

authorities and whether at that time the petitioner was taking education

[5]
wp-1740-2026.odt

is not clarified. The copy of the application made by his father has not

been produced by the petitioner. We can take note of the affidavit only to

consider that it was an attempt.

6. Here, the fact remains is that there is a certificate from the

Headmaster of the School supported by documents showing that the birth

date of the elder brother of the petitioner is 22.01.1968 and he had taken

admission in the school on 13.06.1973. However, when the petitioner

had taken admission on 13.06.1974, the birth date of the petitioner has

been recorded as 15.06.1968. So there is the gap of 145 days only that is

around four months and this is impossible. Certainly, there is obvious

mistake which needs to be corrected. Certainly, in Govind Solanke

(Supra), this Court has taken note of Janabai Himmatrao Thakur (Supra)

and we do not intend to take any different opinion, however, the peculiar

facts of this case would show that the date which is on record of the

school of the petitioner is a obvious mistake. We are also making it clear

that we do not want to enter into the arena of the rules which govern the

service of the petitioner, but certainly the rules would prevail and not our

decision to direct correction of the date in the school record. We are also

aware of the fact that many persons come to Courts for change of their

birth dates at the fag end of their services, of course for the obvious

reasons, without following the service rules, but the change in the birth

[6]
wp-1740-2026.odt

date in the school record can be used for other purposes also and once

the change is accepted, then it should be consistent in the basic

documents.

7. For the above-said reasons, we proceed to pass the following

order :-

ORDER

I) Writ Petition stands partly allowed.

II) The impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by respondent
No.2 stands quashed and set aside.

III) Respondent No.2 is directed to direct the school authorities
of the petitioner to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the
school records. Such order to be passed by respondent No.2 within
a period of one month from today.

IV) We make it very clear again that as regards the petitioner is
concerned, the service rules would prevail and the change in the
school record in view of this order cannot be the sole ground to
give any advantage to the petitioner. The higher authorities of the
petitioner, if at all such application is made, would decide the same
on its own merits.

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[7]

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…