Bombay High Court
SURESH RAMBRIKSH GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SEC. SCHOOL EDU. AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the technical ground of Rule 26.3 and Appendix Six cannot alone justify rejection; the application must be considered on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner sought correction of his minor son’s date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate, alleging the entry (11 December 2008) was erroneous and should read 11 December 2010 as per the birth certificate and Aadhar. The Deputy Director of Education rejected the application on the ground that Rule 26.3 and Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code prohibit changes after the student has left the school. The High Court examined prior decisions (Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab and Kishor S/o Sukhdeo Walhekar) which held that those provisions are directory and that a post‑exit application may be entertained if bona‑fide and the original entry is shown to be wrong. Since the petitioner produced valid documentary proof of the correct date of birth, the Court found the rejection on a purely technical basis untenable. Accordingly, the February 2026 communication was set aside and the matter remanded to the education authority to consider the application on its merits within four weeks. No finding was made on the bonafide nature of the request and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Can an application for correction of date of birth in a school’s general register be entertained after the student has left the school?
- Does Rule 26.3 and Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code bar such post‑exit corrections on a technical ground?
- Must the authority consider the merits of the correction application despite the student’s exit from the school?
Subjects
- date of birth correction
- school leaving certificate
- general register
- Secondary School Code
- Rule 26.3
- technical ground
- merits of application
- writ petition
Judgment
19-wp-6331-2026.doc
Suresh Rambriksh Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
JITENDRA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHANKAR
NIJASURE
Digitally signed by
JITENDRA SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.6331 OF 2026
NIJASURE
Date: 2026.07.09
15:05:43 +0530
Suresh Rambriksh Gupta …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents
----------
Mr. Rajiv Singh, Mr. K.C. Pandey for the Petitioner.
Ms. Mrunal Tavade, i/b. Little & Co. for the Respondent No.3 (SSC
Board).
M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
DATE : 7th JULY 2026
ORDER :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of
parties, the present Writ Petition is taken up for hearing.
Page 1 of 6
-------------------------------------------------
Order dated 7th July 2026
19-wp-6331-2026.doc
Suresh Rambriksh Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2. The short question that arises for determination in the present
Writ Petition is whether an application for correction of date of birth
in the general register of a school can be entertained after the student
has left the school. This issue is squarely covered by not one, but
multiple judgments of our Court, including inter alia, the judgments
in Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1 and
Kishor S/o. Sukhdeo Walhekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.2 .
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that notwithstanding
the application made by him for correcting the date of birth of his
minor son, Mr. Deepak Suresh Gupta, in the School Leaving
Certificate dated 31st May 2025 issued by the Abhyudaya Nagar
Municipal Secondary School / Respondent No. 2, from 11 th December
2008 to 11th December 2010, which application was, in turn,
forwarded by the Guru Nanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science and
Commerce / Respondent No. 5 vide their letter dated 17 th January
2026 to the Deputy Director of Education / Respondent No. 2, the
same was rejected by a communication dated 4 th February 2026 not
1 2012 (5) Mh.L.J 36
2 Order dated 7th January 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 3319 of 2005
Page 2 of 6
-------------------------------------------------
Order dated 7th July 2026
19-wp-6331-2026.doc
Suresh Rambriksh Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
on merits, but instead on the ground that, as per Rule 26.3 and
Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code, such a change in the
School Leaving Certificate is not permissible after the student leaves
the school. As on date, admittedly the student, has passed out of
Respondent No. 4 school after completing his SSC in the year 2025
and is currently pursuing higher education in Respondent No. 5
college.
4. Mr. Rajiv Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has
taken us through the averments in the Petition and in particular, the
documents annexed thereto, including, inter alia, the Birth Certificate
of the student and also his Aadhar Card, both of which clearly reflect
his date of birth as 11th December 2010. Relying on these documents,
Mr. Singh submits that his application which sought change in the
date of birth of the student in his School Leaving Certificate, issued
on the basis of the entries made in the General Register of the school,
could not have been rejected by Respondent No. 2 only on the
technical ground of it having been made after the student left the
school without considering the application on its merits.
Page 3 of 6
-------------------------------------------------
Order dated 7th July 2026
19-wp-6331-2026.doc
Suresh Rambriksh Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
5. A perusal of the judgments in Shaikh Shafi Ahmed
Khadarsab (supra) and Kishor S/o. Sukhdeo Walhekar (supra) reveal
that this Court has held that the instructions contained in paragraphs
26.3 and 26.4 and Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code are
merely directory in nature and not mandatory and an application
filed by a student for a change of an entry in the General Register of
the school such as the date of birth, can be entertained even after the
student has left the school, provided however, that such an
application is bonafide and the student is able to satisfy that the
original entry in the General Register of the school is erroneous. This
Court has further held that such an application can always be
rejected if the entry is not shown to be erroneous and wrong, but,
however, the same cannot be rejected without it being considered on
merits, only on the technical ground that it has been made after the
student has left the school. We are also in agreement with the ratio of
these judgments.
6. In the present case, the Birth Certificate and the Aadhar Card
of the student, Mr. Deepak Suresh Gupta, reflects his date of birth as
Page 4 of 6
-------------------------------------------------
Order dated 7th July 2026
19-wp-6331-2026.doc
Suresh Rambriksh Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
11th December 2010. None of the Respondents have disputed the
veracity of these documents. In light of the above-referred judgments
of this Court in Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab (supra) and Kishor
S/o. Sukhdeo Walhekar (supra), Respondent No. 2 ought to have
considered the said application on its own merits and ought not to
have rejected it, only on the technical ground that the same was
made after the student left the school. Whilst considering the said
application, Respondent No. 2 would also have to be satisfied about
the merits of the case and the bonafides of the Petitioner.
7. For these reasons, the communication dated 4th February 2026
is hereby set aside and the application which seeks change in the date
of birth of the student, Mr. Deepak Suresh Gupta, from 11 th December
2008 which appears in his School Leaving Certificate to 11 th
December 2010, is remanded back to Respondent No. 2 for
consideration on merits. The same shall disposed of within a period
of 4 weeks from the date of this order. We clarify that this Court has
not expressed any opinion as to whether the change sought by the
Petitioner is bonafide or proper.
Page 5 of 6
-------------------------------------------------
Order dated 7th July 2026
19-wp-6331-2026.doc
Suresh Rambriksh Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
8. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above and
the present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, with no order as
to costs.
[FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA J.]
jsn.
Page 6 of 6
-------------------------------------------------
Order dated 7th July 2026
Checking your session…