Bombay High Court

ARBAJ KHAN JAMIR KHAN PATHANversusTHE EDUCATION OFFICER PRIMARY AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Head Master must forward the petition for caste correction to the Education Officer; his rejection of the application is unlawful.

Summary

Arbaj Khan Jamir Khan Pathan filed a writ petition challenging the Head Master’s order rejecting his request to correct his school record caste designation from “Muslim Waghwale” to “Muslim”. The petitioner argued that under Regulation 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1997, the Head Master was obligated to forward such applications to the Education Officer rather than reject them. The High Court examined the statutory provision and relied on the precedent set in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2019) which emphasized procedural fairness in caste‑related corrections. The Court held that the Head Master’s refusal was contrary to the regulation and quashed the impugned order. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the Head Master was directed to forward a fresh application to the Education Officer, and the Education Officer was instructed to decide the matter within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the Head Master can reject a petition for correction of caste entry in school records under Regulation 26.4 of the Secondary School Code, 1997.
Whether the Head Master is mandated to forward the application to the Education Officer for consideration.

Legislation cited

Secondary School Code, 1997 — s. Regulation 26.4

Subjects

caste correction
school records
education law
administrative law
Secondary School Code
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39641-DB


                                                {1}                   wp10959-26.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.10959 OF 2026

                 Arbaj Khan Jamir Khan Pathan                         PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                 The Education Officer Primary and Others           RESPONDENTS

                                               .......
                 Mr. Shaikh Wajeed Ahmed, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent - State
                 Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
                                               .......

                             [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                      ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                     DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     Leave to amend and add State as party Respondent.


                 2.     This Petition challenges order passed by the Head Master –

                 Respondent No.2, thereby rejecting proposal of the Petitioner to

                 correct the school record in respect of his caste from “Muslim

                 Waghwale” to “Muslim”.


                 3.     This Court has consistently taken a view that, as per the

                 Regulation 26.4 of Secondary School Code, 1997, it is imperative

                 for the Head Master to forward the application for such

                 correction to the Education Officer instead of rejecting the same.
                                 {2}                  wp10959-26.doc



4.    In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be

sustained. In the result, following order:

                              ORDER

     a.    The Writ Petition is allowed.

     b.    The impugned order dated 24 th July, 2026 passed by
           Respondent No.2 Head Master is quashed and set
           aside.

     c.    The Petitioner to file fresh application to Respondent
           No.2 - Head Master.

     d.    Respondent No.2 – Head Maser is directed to forward
           the said application of the Petitioner to Respondent
           No.1 for further action, within a period of one week of
           its receipt.

     e.    Respondent No.1 shall decide the application on its
           own merits, in the light of the law laid down in the
           matter of “Janabai Himmatrao Thakur V/s State of
           Maharashtra and Others” 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769 , within
           a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said
           application.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                     [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
         JUDGE                                        JUDGE

drp/wp10959-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…