Bombay High Court

SANJIV MHALAPPA CHENDKE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The communication is an order and is appealable under Rule 15 of the Secondary Schools Code‑2019; the petitioners must first file an appeal before the concerned authority.

Summary

The petitioners sought to have their caste/sub‑caste entries altered in school records, challenging a communication dated 01‑08‑2015 issued by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv, which refused any change. They contended that the communication was not a reasoned order and therefore could not be appealed. The respondents relied on Rule 15 of the Secondary Schools Code‑2019, which provides for an appeal before the Deputy Director. The Court held that the communication was indeed an order and, being subject to appeal under the Code, the petitioners must first file an appeal with the appropriate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with the Court directing the petitioners to file the appeal within three weeks and the authority to decide it within eight weeks, excluding the time spent on the writ petition from any limitation period.

Issues considered

Whether the communication dated 01‑08‑2015 constitutes an order amenable to appeal under Rule 15 of the Secondary Schools Code‑2019.
Whether the petitioners can directly approach the High Court without first filing the statutory appeal.

Legislation cited

Secondary Schools Code, 2019 — s. Rule 15

Subjects

school records
caste change
appeal
Secondary Schools Code
writ petition
education officer
limitation period

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38636-DB


                                                 1              27-wp 6823-2019.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 6823 OF 2019

                 Sanjiv Mhalappa Chendke And Others                        .. Petitioners

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others                       .. Respondents

                 Smt. Priyendra G. Sontakke, Advocate for Petitioners.
                 Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
                 Mr. S. D. Kaldate, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

                                          CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                  JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                          DATE       :   24th AUGUST, 2026.

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.     Heard for some time.


                 2.     The learned advocate Mr. Kaldate appearing for respondent

                 – Zilla Parishad submits that rule 15 of the Secondary Schools

                 Code-2019 Appendix Six Rules And Procedure For Change In

                 Names, Surnames, Caste/Sub-Caste And Dates of Birth of Pupils

                 Reading in Schools provides for an appeal before the concerned

                 Deputy Director.


                 3.     The learned advocate for the petitioners justifies filing of the

                 petition stating that the communication dated 01.08.2015 which
                                  2          27-wp 6823-2019.odt


is under challenge cannot be said to be an order as it is not

supported by reasons and discussions. Therefore, the remedy of

appeal cannot be resorted to.


4.    This Court has seen the order dated 01.08.2015 which

clearly states that no change can be made in the record of the

school. It is stated that the caste is written as per the information

given by the parents while taking education. On the information

there is signature/thumb mark of the parents of the students. In

the entire record the caste shown of the petitioners is as it was

stated while admitting the petitioners in the school. It is clearly

seen that the impugned communication dated 01.08.2015 is an

order passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

Dharashiv.


5.    Considering that, this Court finds that, since the impugned

order is subject to challenge in an appeal, we deem it appropriate

to direct the parties to file an appeal before the concerned

authorities in view of rule 15.


6.    With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.


7.    Needless to say that, time prosecuting in this writ petition
                                 3           27-wp 6823-2019.odt


shall be excluded while considering the period of limitation, if any.


8.       The petitioners to approach the authorities within three

weeks from today. If such appeal is filed, the same be decided

within eight weeks thereafter.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                       ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )


P.S.B.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…