PREMILA NAGORAO INGOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:36088-DB
                                       1                     11.WP.6203-2026.doc



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 6203 OF 2026

             Premila D/o Nagorao Ingole,
             Age: 35 years, Occu: Nil,
             R/o. Malegaon, Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded.           ...Petitioner

                                    VERSUS

             1)    The State of Maharashtra
                   Through its Secretary,
                   School Education Department,
                   Manatralaya Mumbai-32.

             2)    The Education Officer (Secondary)
                   Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

             3)    Sant Parbat Maharaj High School,
                   Malegaon, Taluka Ardhapur,
                   District Nanded.

             4)    Yashvant Mahavidyalaya, Nanded.
                   Through it's Principal, VIP Road,
                   Baba Nagar, Nanded.                       ... Respondents


                                     ******
                Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Rhishikesh A. Joshi
              AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali S. Choudhari
                                     ******
                            CORAM      : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                         ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                           RESERVED ON : 22.07.2026
                           PRONOUNCED ON : 17.08.2026
                               2                           11.WP.6203-2026.doc



JUDGMENT : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the
stage of admission.

2.    By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs :

     “A) By issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or
     directions of like nature, the impugned Order dated 17.03.2026
     passed by Respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

     B) By issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
     directions of like nature the Respondents may kindly be directed to
     cause correction in the date of birth of petitioner as 09.04.1989
     instead of 01.07.1987 in school/College record of petitioner to the

     extent of birth date within a period of two weeks.”

3.    It is the case of the petitioner that her date of birth is
09.04.1989.     The school record where the petitioner took her
primary education shows her date of birth as 09.04.1989. After
passing 7th Standard         from the said primary school, she was
admitted in respondent No.3 – School where she completed her 10 th
Standard. While issuing Leaving Certificate, the Headmaster of
Respondent No.3 - School wrongly showed her date of birth as
01.07.1987. The said date of birth continued till she completed her
studies in respondent No.4 – College.

4.    The petitioner further contends that after noticing this
mistake she approached the respondent No.3 – School. The
                           3                        11.WP.6203-2026.doc



respondent No.3 - School on 12.03.2026 submitted a proposal to
respondent No.2 – Education Officer for correction in her date of
birth, however, by the impugned order the respondent No.2 turned
down the said proposal on the ground that as per Clause 26.4 of the
Secondary Schools Code, since the petitioner is no more a student
of respondent No.3 – School, her date of birth cannot be corrected.
The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court.

5.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this being an
obvious mistake, the Respondent No.2 ought to have corrected the
date of birth of the petitioner. The reasons assigned for rejecting the
proposal is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case
of Jannabai Himmatrao Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others reported in 2019 (6) Mh.L.J.769. He would submit
that the school record of Primary School where the petitioner was
initially studying and the Birth Certificate issued by the competent
authority demonstrate that her date of birth is 09.04.1989. He,
therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside
by directing respondent No.2 to correct the date of birth of the
petitioner.

6.    Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the petitioner is
seeking correction in her date of birth at the fag end of her career
after a period of 20 years, which is impermissible. In support of her
submission, she has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra And Another vs.
Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble And Others reported in 2010
                                4                            11.WP.6203-2026.doc



(14) SCC 423. She thus supported the impugned order.

7.    We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
AGP for respondent/State and perused the record.

8.    The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jannabai
Himmatrao Thakur (supra), while interpreting clauses 26.3 and
26.4 of Secondary Schools Code, observed thus :

     “39. This being the position, We answer Question Nos.(A) & (C) in
     the following terms:
     (a) An application for alteration in the entries in the General
     Register is permissible, 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 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) Thus, in light of the above, an application for change in the
     name, surname or caste, either due to reasons/cause unnoticed
     before or even occurring subsequently, being errors which fall
     within the category of 'obvious mistakes', can be made, even after
     the student has left school in light of the language of Clause 26.3
     in the manner as indicated by Appendix Six in the forms as
     prescribed in the S.S. Code.
     (d) For the purposes like 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.

9.    In the light of the above legal exposition we find that, the
petitioner’s case falls within the purview of ‘obvious mistake’ and
merely because she had left the respondent No.3/School that by
itself cannot be a ground to reject the proposal seeking correction in
                                 5                            11.WP.6203-2026.doc



her date of birth.

10.    As far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (supra) relied upon by learned
AGP is concerned, in that case, the appellant therein had sought
correction in his date of birth at the fag end of his service after 28
years of his appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court therefore, held
that, the correction in date of birth at the fag end of a career is not
permissible. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court
read thus :

      “12. Apart from the notification and the said instructions this Court
      in a series of cases has categorically laid down that the employees
      should not be permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of
      their service career. In the instance case the application of alteration
      has been filed at the fag end of his service career after a lapse of
      twenty-eight years.

11.    In the present case, admittedly the petitioner is not in
employment, therefore, it cannot be said that she is seeking
correction in her date of birth at the fag end of her service. With
great respect, the judgment in the case of Gorakhnath Sitaram
Kamble (supra) relied upon by the learned AGP would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. It is pertinent to note
that, the ground for refusing to correct the date of birth of the
petitioner is not on count of delay, but on the ground that she had
left the Respondent No. 3 School and, as such, in view of Clause
26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code, the correction in her date of
birth is impermissible.
                                6                           11.WP.6203-2026.doc




12.      It is trite law that, an order passed by the statutory
authority has to be judged on what is stated in the order and not on
what is sought to be supported/improved by subsequent affidavits or
otherwise. The support can be drawn from the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and
another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
and others reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 wherein, the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed thus :

      “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
      functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its
      validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
      cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
      affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning
      may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge,
      get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may
      here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in
      Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at P.18)

      "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
      authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
      subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he
      meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.
      Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have
      public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct
      of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed
      objectively with reference to the language used in the order
      itself".
      Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.

13.    Applying the aforesaid ratio, we are of the considered view
that, the impugned order needs to be judged on the touchstone of
the    reasons    assigned     therein    and    not   by    substituting         or
                              7                        11.WP.6203-2026.doc



supplementing the reasons. The submissions of learned AGP in
that regard cannot be accepted.

14.     In view thereof, we find that the impugned order passed by
respondent No.2 –Education Officer is unsustainable. We are
therefore, inclined to allow the Writ Petition. Hence, we pass the
following order :

                                  ORDER

      i) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’
      and ‘B’.

      ii) The Respondent No. 2 is directed to complete the
      exercise of correction in the date of birth of the petitioner
      within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of
      a copy of this order.

      iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.




 ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )          ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI , J. )



vsj..