Hujef Khan Yahya Khan Pathan vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hujef Khan Yahya Khan Pathan vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; respondent No. 2 directed to issue order granting the proposal forwarded by respondent No. 3 dated 10.07.2025 for change of the petitioner's religion ('Islam') and caste ('Muslim') in the school record within 15 days; respondent No. 1 to apprise authorities of the Full Bench decision in Janabai Thakur, failing which future similar orders may be treated as contempt.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's school record can be corrected to show his religion as 'Islam' and caste as 'Muslim', and whether the authority may reject such an application on the ground that the petitioner is not taking education in the school, in view of the Full Bench decision in Janabai Thakur interpreting Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code.

Ratio / Principle

Applications for change of religion and caste in school record cannot be rejected on the ground that the person is not taking education in the school; respondent No. 1 is directed to apprise the concerned authorities of the Full Bench decision in Janabai Thakur.

Key takeaways

The interpretation of Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code rendered by this Court (Full Bench in Janabai Thakur) is binding on all the authorities.ratio¶2
If, even after the authorities are apprised by respondent No. 1, similar rejection orders continue to be passed, this Court will consider such orders as contempt.obiter¶2
Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue order and grant the proposal forwarded by respondent No. 3 dated 10.07.2025 for change of the petitioner's religion and caste in the school record within 15 days.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

School record correction of religion and caste - petitioner's religion recorded as 'Muslim' instead of 'Islam' and caste as 'Tadvi' instead of 'Muslim' - authority (respondent No. 2) had rejected the application by order dated 14.07.2025 solely on the ground that the petitioner was not taking education in the school - Court holds, following the Full Bench decision in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR OnLine 2019 Bombay 1055], that such rejection is impermissible; the Full Bench interpretation of Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code is binding on all authorities. Respondent No. 1 (State) directed to apprise the concerned authorities of the Full Bench decision and not to reject applications on the ground of non-continuing education; continued defiance to be treated as contempt. Respondent No. 2 directed to issue order granting respondent No. 3's proposal dated 10.07.2025 for change of religion and caste in the school record within 15 days. Writ petition allowed.

2026:BHC-AUG:61-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 10080 OF 2025

Hujef Khan Yahya Khan Pathan VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and others

Mr. R. R. Kakani, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for respondent-State

CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 06^th January, 2026

PER COURT :-

Present petition has been filed for correction of religion and caste in the school record. The petitioner submits that his religion is “Islam” and caste is “Muslim” however, in the school record his religion has been wrongly mentioned as “Muslim” and caste has been wrongly mentioned as “Tadvi”. The petitioner has filed school admission extract and School Leaving Certificates of his relatives in which the religion and caste mentioned as Islam and Muslim respectively. But, in the school record of present petitioner, his religion and caste has been wrongly mentioned as Muslim and Tadvi respectively. Respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 14.07.2025 rejected the application on the ground that the the petitioner is not taking education in the school. The petitioner is relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Janabai Himmatrao Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others , [AIR OnLine 2019 Bombay 1055].

We are coming across many such orders, in spite of the decision of this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra), stating that the

1 of 2

WP-10080-2025.odt

applicant/petitioner is not taking education in the school and, therefore, the authority has no jurisdiction or power to make changes in the school record. While allowing the present petition, we direct respondent No.1 to apprise the concerned authorities about the Full Bench decision of this Court in Janabai Thakur (supra) and not to reject the applications on the ground that the person is not taking education in the school. The interpretation in respect of Rule 26.4 of Secondary School Code has been interpreted by this Court and that interpretation is binding on all the authorities. Even after apprising the authorities by respondent No. 1, if we come across such orders, then this Court will consider such orders as contempt.

With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed.

Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue order and grant the proposal forwarded by respondent No. 3 dated 10.07.2025 in respect of change in the religion and caste of petitioner in the school record within a period of 15 days from today.

(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)

(Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

B. S. Joshi

2 of 2

WP-10080-2025.odt