School records can be corrected even after a student leaves school if existing entries are erroneous.

The petitioner completed Standard 10 at Government High School, Botad (Respondent No. 3) in 2012. His School Leaving Certificate (SLC) recorded his caste as "Hindu Chamar"

The petitioner asserted his correct caste is "Hindu Vankar," supported by caste certificates issued by the Mamlatdar in 2010 and 2011

He applied to the District Education Officer (DEO), Botad (Respondent No. 2), for correction, but the application was rejected on October 16, 2025. The DEO cited Regulations 12A(5)(6) of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Regulations, stating that school records cannot be altered once a student has left the institution

The petitioner subsequently challenged this rejection before the High Court

1. Whether the District Education Officer has the authority to direct the correction of caste in a School Leaving Certificate after the student has left the school, notwithstanding the restrictive provisions of Regulation 12A

2. Whether the refusal to correct a documented error in school records based on procedural technicalities constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power

The Court primarily interpreted Regulation 12A(5) and (6) of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Regulations, which generally restricts amendments to school records after a student departs

The Court relied on the legal principle established in Ashifbhai Aminbhai Bhayani v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 18550 of 2021) and previous Division Bench rulings, which hold that errors in statutory documents must be corrected to prevent arbitrary injury to a citizen. These precedents establish that the DEO possesses the inherent power to issue directions for such corrections when supported by high-evidentiary value documents, such as statutory certificates issued by a Mamlatdar or Registrar

The Court observed that while the respondent authorities relied on the restrictive language of Rule 12A to deny the correction, judicial precedents have consistently held that authorities are not "error-proof" and total denial of correction amounts to a violation of public duty

The Court noted that the petitioner provided credible evidence, including his own caste certificates and those of his real brother, showing the "Hindu Vankar" status

Applying the reasoning from the Ashifbhai case, the Court found that a resident should not be forced to "run from pillar to post" for a genuine correction when there is no dispute regarding the authenticity of the supporting statutory certificates

The High Court determined that the DEO failed to exercise their jurisdiction to verify the documents and provide relief, rendering the rejection order unsustainable

The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the DEO with supporting family documents. It further directed the DEO to verify the genuineness of these documents and, upon satisfaction, instruct Respondent No. 3 to issue a fresh SLC reflecting the caste as "Hindu Vankar" within three months