Bombay High Court

SHARDHA NAGNATH PANCHALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The headmaster lacks jurisdiction to reject a caste‑correction request and must forward the representation to the Education Officer as mandated by Rule 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code.

Summary

The petitioner sought correction of his caste designation in school records from ‘Sutar’ to ‘Lohar’, but the headmaster rejected the request, claiming lack of authority. The petition challenged the headmaster’s communications dated 05/02/2026, 11/07/2026 and 27/07/2026. The Court examined Rule 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code, which obliges the headmaster to forward such proposals to the Education Officer and does not grant him power to reject them. It held that the headmaster acted beyond his jurisdiction and his rejection was unlawful. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the headmaster’s communication was quashed, and he was directed to forward the petition to the Education Officer within two weeks, who must decide within another two weeks and cannot reject the request merely because the petitioner is no longer a student.

Issues considered

Whether the headmaster had jurisdiction to reject the petitioner’s request for caste correction in school records.
Whether the headmaster was 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 petition on the ground that the petitioner is no longer a student.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Secondary Schools Code — s. Rule 26.4

Subjects

caste correction
school records
administrative law
writ petition
education officer
secondary schools code

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37831-DB

1 63-WP-10206-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 10206 OF 2026

SHARDHA NAGNATH PANCHAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. Sachin S. Deogude, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for respondent No.3
...

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026

PER COURT :

1. This petition challenges the communications dated

05/02/2026, 11/07/2026 and 27/07/2026 passed by the

respondents, thereby rejecting request of the petitioner for

correction of his caste in school record. Petitioner applied for

correction of his caste from ‘Sutar’ to ‘Lohar’. The said proposal is

rejected by the Headmaster on the ground that, he does not have

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.

SVH
2 63-WP-10206-26.odt

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

petitioner to the Education Officer, within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Education Officer

shall decide the said proposal within a period of two weeks

thereafter.

4. It is made clear that the Education Officer shall not

reject the said proposal only on the ground that the petitioner is no

more student of the said school.

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

SVH

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…