Ranjana Yogesh JadhavversusPrincipal Secretary School Education Department

                                                                           WP-7647-26.DOC

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 7647 OF 2026


SAINATH               Ranjana Yogesh Jadhav
SANJAY                Age 35, Occupation: Maid
BODKHE                (House help worker)
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
                      Kalpataru Jade Hills Road near
Date: 2026.07.22
21:17:12 +0530
                      EL Homes Baner Pune                                  ..Petitioner

                            Versus

                      1. Principal Secretary,
                         School Education Department,
                         The State of Maharashtra,
                         Mantralaya, Mumbai.

                      2. The Deputy Director,
                         Education, Pune Division,
                         Pune.

                      3. The Education Of=cer (Primary),
                         Zilla Parishad, Pune.
                                                   …Respondents
                      _____________________________________

                      Mr. Bhushan Raut, a/w Mr. Pritam Kulkarni, Mr. Vipul Patil,
                           Mr. Shubhu Shirsath, for the Petitioner.

                      Smt. M S Srivastava, AGP for Respondent – State.

                      Mr. Suresh Punjaji Tayade, Principal JCamata Vidyalaya,
                           Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhana.
                      _____________________________________

                                      CORAM                :   N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                      RESERVED ON          :   13th July 2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON :          22nd July 2026




                      SAINATH, PA                      1/12
                                                      WP-7647-26.DOC

JUDGMENT :-


1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard =nally.


2.    This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

takes exception to an order dated 21 st May, 2026, passed by the

Deputy Director (Education), Pune, whereby Appeal No.68/2026

preferred by the petitioner against an order passed by the

Education Of=cer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Pune and the First

Appellate Authority which had, in turn, af=rmed the decision of

the Taluka Level Scrutiny Committee rejecting the proposal of

admission of the daughter of the petitioner in Aditya English

Medium School, Pune, under the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act”) on the ground

that, the caste certi=cate was not valid, came to be dismissed.


3.    The background facts leading to this petition can be

stated, in brief, as under :-


3.1   The petitioner is a single parent. A daughter “Arohee” was

born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and Yogesh Jagan

Jadhav. The petitioner and late Yogesh Jadhav, both belong to a

Nomadic Tribe (Dhangar). Yogesh Jadhav, the father of Arohee


SAINATH, PA                       2/12
                                                    WP-7647-26.DOC

passed away on 07th December, 2021. The petitioner has been

shouldering the responsibility of rearing and upbringing Arohee.

The petitioner works as a house help and earns her livelihood.


3.2   The petitioner applied for the admission of Arohee under

the RTE quota. Arohee’s admission was proposed in Aditya

English Medium School, Pune. However, the Taluka Level

Scrutiny Committee rejected the proposal on the ground that,

the caste certi=cate was not valid. The Taluka Level Scrutiny

Committee was of the view that, since the petitioner had not

produced the father’s caste certi=cate, although the caste

certi=cate of the petitioner was produced, the admission under

RTE quota cannot be approved.


3.3   Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the Education Of=cer – the First Appellate Authority. By an

order dated 30th April, 2026, the First Appellate Authority

dismissed the appeal concurring with the view of the Scrutiny

Committee that for want of production of the caste certi=cate of

late Yogesh Jadhav, the father of the child, the latter was not

entitled to be admitted in the School under the RTE quota.


3.4   The petitioner assailed the said order before the Deputy

Director (Education), Pune. By the impugned order the Deputy
SAINATH, PA                     3/12
                                                     WP-7647-26.DOC

Director (Education), the Second Appellate Authority, dismissed

the appeal and af=rmed the order passed by the Education

Of=cer.


4.    Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the

writ jurisdiction of this Court.


5.    I have heard Mr. Bhushan Raut, the learned Counsel for

the petitioner, and Smt. M. S. Srivastava, the learned AGP for

the Respondents – State.


6.    Mr. Bhushan Raut, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

strenuously submitted that, the =rst as well as the second

Appellate Authority has taken a very hyper-technical view of the

matter. Since late Yogesh Jadhav passed away before he could

obtain a caste certi=cate, the failure to produce the caste

certi=cate of late Yogesh Jadhav, in the circumstances of the

case, could not have been a valid ground for the rejection of the

proposal for admission. Banking upon the caste certi=cate of

the petitioner, which indicates that, the petitioner is a member

of Dhangar Caste recognized as a Nomadic Tribe (C), Mr. Raut

submitted that, the refusal to take into account the caste

certi=cate of the mother, especially when the father of the child

has passed away, infringes upon the fundamental right of the
SAINATH, PA                        4/12
                                                          WP-7647-26.DOC

child to live a life of dignity untrammeled by patriarchal bias of

the society.


7.      Mr. Raut further submitted that, the fact that late Yogesh

Jadhav also belonged to the Dhangar community was brought

to the notice of the authorities by placing on record a copy of

the School Leaving Certi=cate of late Yogesh Jadhav, which

clearly records that, he was a member of the Dhangar caste. In

the face of the aforesaid material, Mr. Raut would urge, the

rejection of the proposal on the technical ground that the caste

certi=cate of the father, could not be produced, was wholly

arbitrary and impinged upon the fundamental right of the child

to have free and compulsory education.


8.      Mr. Raut placed reliance on a judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of X.Y.Z. & anr. Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & ors.1, wherein the Division Bench disapproved

the pedantic and technical approach of instrumentalities of the

State    where    the   resultant     action   impinges    upon     the

constitutional rights of the child.


9.      Smt. Srivastava, the learned AGP for the Respondents –

State submitted that, the Authorities have examined the

1       WP/15528/2025
SAINATH, PA                           5/12
                                                      WP-7647-26.DOC

proposal in accordance with the norms and found the

application de=cient.


10.   At the outset, it must be noted that, though apparently

innocuous, the impugned orders have the propensity to deprive

the petitioner of the constitutionally guaranteed equality and

the child of her fundamental right to have free and compulsory

education. A larger question as to whether, in a situation of the

present nature, where the father of the child has passed away,

the insistence on having the caste certi=cate of the father is in

consonance with the constitutional scheme of equality, arises

for consideration.


11.   Few facts are rather indisputable. The father of the child

has passed away on       07th December , 2021. Evidently, the

petitioner is a single parent. The fact that the petitioner belongs

to Dhangar Caste, which is a recognized Nomadic Tribe ©, is

borne out by the caste certi=cate issued by the Competent

Authority to the petitioner. Indisputably, the Authorities found

‘Arohee’ eligible for admission through the RTE quota and

Aditya English Medium School was allotted to her. The Taluka

Level Scrutiny Committee, however, rejected the proposal on the




SAINATH, PA                       6/12
                                                      WP-7647-26.DOC

ground that, the father’s caste certi=cate was not placed on

record though the mother’s caste certi=cate was produced.


12.   The legal position as regards the guardianship of a child,

in a situation of the present nature, where a father is either no

longer alive or on account of circumstances, is absent from the

life of the child or disables himself from discharging his parental

responsibilities, the mother is considered a natural guardian. A

pro=table reference in this context can be made to a judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Githa Hariharan & anr.

Vs. Reserve Bank of India & anr.2.


13.   The insistence on the child being recognized, in all

circumstances, solely by the caste of her father is not

sustainable. It is not an immutable rule of law that, the child

whatever the circumstances may be, must take the caste of her

father. In a given set of circumstances, where the child suffers

from the disadvantages and discriminations, which the mother

of the child has suffered, the child may legitimately take the

caste of her mother.


14.   A useful reference, in this context, can be made to a

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai

2     AIR 1999 SC 1149
SAINATH, PA                       7/12
                                                               WP-7647-26.DOC

Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat 3, wherein the Supreme Court

enunciated that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage

between a tribal and a non-tribal, the determination of the caste

of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on

the   basis    of   the   evidence    adduced      in   each    case.   The

determination of the caste of a person born out of an inter-caste

marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal,

cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of

the case. The following observations of the Supreme Court are

instructive and, hence, extracted below :-

              “55. In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage
              between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a
              presumption that the child has the caste of the
              father. This presumption may be stronger in the case
              where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage
              between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband
              belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the
              presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is
              open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to
              show that he/she was brought up by the mother who
              belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
              By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he
              did not have any advantageous start in life but on the
              contrary    suffered   the     deprivations,   indignities,
              humilities and handicaps like any other member of
              the community to which his/her mother belonged.


3     (2012) 3 SCC 400
SAINATH, PA                           8/12
                                                         WP-7647-26.DOC

              Additionally, that he was always treated as a member
              of the community to which her mother belonged not
              only by that community but by the people outside
              the community as well.”


15.   A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sonal

Pratapsingh      Vahanwala      Vs.     Deputy   District   Collector

(Encroachment), Dharavi Division, Mumbai & ors.4, was

confronted with the question as to what would be the caste of

the child who is taken in adoption by a single mother, who

belongs to a Scheduled Caste. After adverting to the aforesaid

decision in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika (supra) , the

Division Bench enunciated that, the case of the petitioner was

on a better footing than the cases of the children born to

parents out of an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a

tribal and a non-tribal. In the case of such children, their caste

would at least be known. However, where a child was adopted

from the orphanage with the permission of the Court, the child

would be entitled to take the caste of the mother.


16.   In the case at hand, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the

considered view of this Court, have not examined the matter

from the perspective of the fundamental right of the child to

have free and compulsory education. The Authorities have

4     2022 SCC OnLine Bom 628
SAINATH, PA                           9/12
                                                         WP-7647-26.DOC

proceeded     as   if   they   were     dealing   with   the    routine

administrative matter. A denial of the admission under the Right

to Education Act quota merely on the ground that though the

mother’s caste certi=cate was produced, the caste certi=cate of

the father who had passed away, could not be produced,

manifests a very myopic and constricted view of the matter.


17.    What exacerbates the situation is the fact that, the School

Leaving Certi=cate of the father of the child was produced before

the Authorities. The School Leaving Certi=cate clearly records

that, late Yogesh Jadhav was a member of ‘Dhangar’ community.

The petitioner; the mother of the child, also belongs to the said

caste and possesses a caste certi=cate issued by the Competent

Authority. The Authorities could not have, thus, lightly brushed

aside these documents, especially when the father of the child

has already passed away.


18.    To satisfy the conscience of this Court, the learned AGP

was directed to get the authenticity of the School Leaving

Certi=cate of late Yogesh Jadhav, the father of the child, veri=ed

from    JCamata    Secondary    and      Higher   Secondary     School,

Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhana. The Headmaster of               JCamata

Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Sindkhed Raja, Dist.


SAINATH, PA                           10/12
                                                       WP-7647-26.DOC

Buldhana, has submitted a report to the effect that late Yogesh

Jadhav, the father of the child was a student of the said School

and the School Leaving Certi=cate was issued by the then

Headmaster on the basis of the register maintained by the said

School.


19.   In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Authorities were

clearly in error in rejecting the proposal for the admission of

Arohee in Aditya English Medium School under RTE quota by

mechanically insisting for the caste certi=cate of the father of

the child. The constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory

education to children, and the substantive equality could not

have been sacri=ced at the alter of procedural rigidity of

production of caste certi=cate of the father of the child.


20.   In the considered view of this Court, in the peculiar

circumstances of the case, the Authorities ought to have

granted admission to Arohee under RTE quota on the basis of

the caste certi=cate of the mother of the child, without insisting

for the production of the documents of the father of the child,

construing the petitioner to be the sole parent of the child. In

any event, the School Leaving Certi=cate of the father of the

child lent requisite assurance regarding the caste of the father of


SAINATH, PA                       11/12
                                                         WP-7647-26.DOC

the child and, resultantly, that of the child. Thus, the petition

deserves to be allowed.


21.   Hence, the following order :-

                                ::ORDER::

              i)     The Writ Petition stands allowed.

              ii)    The impugned order dated 21st May 2026

              as well as the order dated 30th April 2026

              passed by the Education Of=cer (R3) stand

              quashed and set aside.

              iii)   The    respondents     are    directed    to

              immediately grant admission to the petitioner’s

              daughter - Arohee Yogesh Jadhav without

              insisting for the production of caste certi=cate

              of Arohee father. In any event, the admission be

              granted to Arohee Yogesh Jadhav on or before

              31st July 2026.

              iv)    Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

              v)     All concerned to act on an authenticated

              copy of this judgment.



                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]



SAINATH, PA                         12/12