Full Bench of Bombay High Court Answers Reference on the Interpretation of Secondary Schools Code in School Record Correction Cases. The court resolves conflicts between earlier Division Bench judgments on whether an ex-student can seek alteration of name, date of birth, and caste in school leaving certificates under Clauses 26.3 and 26.4 of the Code.

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition came before the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, on a reference made by a Division Bench vide order dated 30 June 2017. The petitioner, Janabai D/o Himmatrao Thakur, had filed the petition seeking correction of entries such as name, surname, date of birth, and caste in her school records maintained by the Municipal Marathi School No. 15, Amalner. Having already left the school, she required these corrections to secure admission to another educational institution. The Division Bench observed conflicting views in earlier judgments on whether such an application can be entertained on behalf of an ex‑student under Clauses 26.3 and 26.4 of the Secondary Schools Code. It accordingly framed three questions of law for resolution by the Full Bench: (A) whether an application for alteration, correction, or change in entries in the General Register can be entertained on behalf of a pupil who has left the school, especially when required for further education; (B) whether the view taken by the Division Bench in Swapneel s/o Maroti Sonwale v. State of Maharashtra, Vilas s/o Dattatraya Ransubhe v. State of Maharashtra, and Arshad Khalid Jamal v. State of Maharashtra, which permitted such applications, is correct, or whether the earlier view in Captain Anil Vasantrao Bhat v. Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education, which held that no provision authorizes correction for an ex‑student, should prevail; and (C) whether any change must be consistent with Clauses 26.3 and 26.4 read with Appendix Six of the Secondary Schools Code, i.e., limited to bonafide cases involving only wrong spelling or obvious mistakes. During the hearing before the Full Bench, Mr. S.S. Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Clause 26.4 expressly permits an application even after the pupil has left the school and that the purposes mentioned in the clause are merely illustrative, not exhaustive. He urged a broad, beneficial interpretation to avoid genuine hardship and relied on Shaikh Shafi Ahmed Khadarsab v. State of Maharashtra, where the Division Bench held the provisions to be directory, and on Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, which cautioned against a rigid reading of rules when bonafide errors are evident. He also criticized the decision in Captain Anil Vasantrao Bhat as failing to consider the enabling language of Clause 26.4. Mr. A.N. Sabnis, who appeared suo motu and was permitted to address the court, supported the petitioner’s stand. Citing Sheela Sachchidanand Damle and Vinayakrao Deshmukh High School Society, he submitted that the Secondary Schools Code is merely a compilation of executive instructions without statutory force, and therefore any restrictions on time or purpose cannot be treated as mandatory. The Government Pleader, Mr. A.B. Girase, opposed the submissions, contending that Clauses 26.3 and 26.4 are structured to impose a limitation—once the pupil leaves the school, only obvious mistakes such as spelling errors can be corrected. He relied on Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Md. Sarifuz Zaman and other Supreme Court decisions that emphasise strict compliance with timelines and procedures for alteration of date of birth. He further argued that the S.S. Code, though not a statute, has acquired statutory flavour through continuous enforcement and judicial recognition, and therefore its provisions must be construed literally without relaxation. After hearing the arguments, the Full Bench reserved judgment on 21 September 2019 and pronounced the decision on 17 October 2019. The text of the judgment provided does not include the court’s final analysis or the operative order on the referred questions.

Issue of Consideration

Law Points