FAROOQUI AMTUL FATEMA MUHAMMED MOHIB ULLAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:37415-DB


                                                 1                 120-WP-10089-26.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 10089 OF 2026

                      FAROOQUI AMTUL FATEMA MUHAMMED MOHIB ULLAH
                                             VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
                                            OTHERS
                                               ...
              Mr. Rameez M. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State
                                               ...

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                        DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.            The petitioner is seeking correction of his caste from

              ‘Momin’ to ‘Muslim’ in the School record. The Education Officer has

              rejected the said request to correct the caste mentioned in school

              records on the ground that petitioner is not taking education in the

              school, by relying on Rule 26.04 of the Secondary Schools Code,

              2006.


              2.            This Court has   consistently taken a view that merely

              because student is no more taking education in the said school

              cannot be a ground to deny the request like one made by the

              petitioner.


              3.            The case of petitioner is squarely covered by the Full

              Bench decision in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs The State of




              SVH
                                     2                  120-WP-10089-26.odt


Maharashtra and Others, AIR OnLine 2019 Bombay 1055. The

relevant direction reads thus:

           “(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.”

4.             It is necessary to mention here that the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Writ

Petition     No.14175    of   2025   has   made    following    pertinent

observations:

           “5. Time and again it has come to our notice that in
           spite of there being a judgment of the Full Bench of
           this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra) and also several
           orders thereafter passed by this Court, the officers are
           repeatedly passing the orders contrary to the said
           judgment which leads to several litigations being filed
           in the High Court. We, therefore, feel it appropriate to
           direct the Principal Secretary of School Education and
           Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to issue
           appropriate orders there by circulating the above
           mentioned judgment to all its officers in the
           department with a clear direction to follow the order in
           its true letter and spirit. Henceforth, any disobedience
           of the order is observed or brought to our notice will
           attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and
           the Erring Officers will be held in contempt under the
           said Act.”

5.             In the light of above observations, in fact, contempt

action needs to be initiated against respondent No.2. However, by


SVH
                                   3                  120-WP-10089-26.odt


way of indulgence we give one more chance to respondent No. 2 to

mend his ways and correct his mistake.

6.    In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

7.    Impugned communication/order dated 15.05.2026 issued by

respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside.

8.    The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2, who shall

direct to carry out correction sought by the petitioner by keeping in

mind decision in the case of Janabai Thakur (supra) and directions

given by this Court in Writ Petition No.14175 of 2025, within a

period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.



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




SVH