1 120-WP-10089-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10089 OF 2026 FAROOQUI AMTUL FATEMA MUHAMMED MOHIB ULLAH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Mr. Rameez M. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is seeking correction of his caste from ‘Momin’ to ‘Muslim’ in the School record. The Education Officer has rejected the said request to correct the caste mentioned in school records on the ground that petitioner is not taking education in the school, by relying on Rule 26.04 of the Secondary Schools Code, 2006. 2. This Court has consistently taken a view that merely because student is no more taking education in the said school cannot be a ground to deny the request like one made by the petitioner. 3. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs The State of SVH 2026:BHC-AUG:37415-DB 2 120-WP-10089-26.odt Maharashtra and Others, AIR OnLine 2019 Bombay 1055. The relevant direction reads thus: “(c) Thus, in light of the above, an application for change in the name, surname or caste, either due to reasons/cause unnoticed before or even occurring subsequently, being errors which fall within the category of ‘obvious mistakes’, can be made, even after the student has left school in light of the language of Clause 26.3 in the manner as indicated by Appendix Six in the forms as prescribed in the S.S. Code.” 4. It is necessary to mention here that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.14175 of 2025 has made following pertinent observations: “5. Time and again it has come to our notice that in spite of there being a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra) and also several orders thereafter passed by this Court, the officers are repeatedly passing the orders contrary to the said judgment which leads to several litigations being filed in the High Court. We, therefore, feel it appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary of School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to issue appropriate orders there by circulating the above mentioned judgment to all its officers in the department with a clear direction to follow the order in its true letter and spirit. Henceforth, any disobedience of the order is observed or brought to our notice will attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and the Erring Officers will be held in contempt under the said Act.” 5. In the light of above observations, in fact, contempt action needs to be initiated against respondent No.2. However, by SVH 3 120-WP-10089-26.odt way of indulgence we give one more chance to respondent No. 2 to mend his ways and correct his mistake. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. 7. Impugned communication/order dated 15.05.2026 issued by respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. 8. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2, who shall direct to carry out correction sought by the petitioner by keeping in mind decision in the case of Janabai Thakur (supra) and directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.14175 of 2025, within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH