Bombay High Court
SHAHANOORKHAN SHARDALKHAN PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Headmaster had no jurisdiction to reject the caste‑correction proposal; the communication was quashed and the matter must be forwarded to the Education Officer.
Summary
Shahanoorkhan Shardalkhan Pathan filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 29‑07‑2026 in which the Headmaster of his school rejected his request to correct his caste entry from ‘Tadvi Pathan’ to ‘Muslim’. The petitioner argued that the Headmaster lacked authority to refuse the correction and that the matter should be referred to the Education Officer as mandated by Rule 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code. The Court examined the statutory provisions and held that the Headmaster’s role is limited to forwarding such proposals to the Education Officer and he cannot reject them on the ground cited. Consequently, the Court quashed the Headmaster’s communication and ordered it to be sent to the Education Officer within two weeks. The Education Officer was directed to decide the petition within another two weeks and was barred from rejecting the request merely because the petitioner was no longer a student. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Headmaster has jurisdiction to reject a petition for correction of caste in school records.
- Whether the Headmaster is required to forward the petition to the Education Officer under Rule 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code.
- Whether the Education Officer can reject the correction on the ground that the petitioner is no longer a student.
Legislation cited
- Secondary Schools Code — s. Rule 26.4
Subjects
- caste correction
- school records
- administrative jurisdiction
- education officer
- Secondary Schools Code
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37793-DB
1 63.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
63 WRIT PETITION NO. 10137 OF 2026
SHAHANOORKHAN SHARDALKHAN PATHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Solanke Krushna S.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.M. Kagne
…
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 18.08.2026
PER COURT :
. The petitioner is challenging the communication dated
29.07.2026 issued by the Headmaster rejecting the proposal for
correction in the caste of the petitioner in school record. The petitioner
applied for correction in his caste from ‘Tadvi Pathan’ to ‘Muslim’. The
said proposal is rejected by the Headmaster on the ground that, he
does not have the authority for correction.
2. The Headmaster under Rule 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code,
has to forward the proposal to the Education Officer. He has no
jurisdiction to reject the proposal on the ground stated in the said
communication.
3. Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned
communication/remark issued by the Headmaster is quashed and set-
aside. The Headmaster shall forward the representation of the
2 63.doc
petitioner dated 29.07.2026, to the Education Officer, within a period
of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. Respondent No.2/Education Officer shall decide the said
proposal within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter.
5. It is made clear that the Education Officer shall not reject the
said proposal only on the ground that the petitioner is no more a
student of the said school.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. )
vsj..
Checking your session…