Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. The Director National Institute of Open Schooling

Himachal Pradesh HC4 May 2017CWP/118/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a certiorari petition, the High Court directed the NIOS to correct the petitioner's mother's name in his plus two certificate. The Court held the correction application was not time-barred since the error remained undiscovered until the marks sheet was issued. The origin of the name mismatch is set aside as non-primary fact. The writ was allowed granting the relief.

What did the court decide?

Direction to correct the name of the petitioner's mother as Phulma Devi in the school records and supply fresh result-cum-marks sheet within two months.

Ajay Kumar Vs The Director National… — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 118 of 2016. Decided on: 4.5.2017.

¶2

Ajay Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus The Director, National Institute of Open Schooling & anr. …….Respondents.

¶3

The Director, National Institute of Open Schooling & anr. …….Respondents. __________________________________________________________________________

¶4

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ . No.

¶5

For the petitioner: Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶6

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral).

¶7

This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following

¶8

prayers:

¶9

“(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside Annexure P-4, and directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for correction of his mother’s name in plus two certificate in the light of her name mentioned in matriculation certificate Annexure P-1. (ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to amend clause 3.2 of the Guideline of NIOS, and insert the provision, change/correction in learner’s name/father/mother/guardian after declaration of result.”

¶10

The qualification of the petitioner is matriculation and with a

¶11

view to improve his qualification, he took admission in National Institute of

¶12

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

Open Schooling (hereinafter referred to as “NIOS” in short), (2^nd respondent) in the year 2013. He submitted his admission form duly filled in to the respondents, mentioning the name of his mother as Phulam Devi. He had enclosed his certificate of 10^th class along with the admission form. He passed his 10 + 2 examination through NIOS in June, 2015. He was supplied detail marks sheet Annexure P-2 in the month of June, 2015. It is from this document he came to know that the name of his mother recorded therein is incorrect. He, therefore, made an application Annexure P-3 to the respondents on prescribed proforma which was received and diarized against No. 25629 dated 10.8.2015 with a prayer to correct the name of his mother as Phulama Devi instead of Phulam Devi. The request so made by him, though was considered by the respondents, however, against him because vide order Annexure P-4, the same was rejected on the ground that in view of note No. 6 on the reverse of the marks sheet supplied to him, such request being belated cannot be considered. This has led in filing the present petition.

¶15

The respondents, when put to notice, have contested the petition. Their response, in a nut shell, is that as per instructions Annexure R-2/2, read with note 6 on the reverse of the detailed marks sheet, the correction qua learner’s name/father/mother/guardian/DOB could have only been ordered in the event the request for the purpose is made within three years from the date of registration and any discrepancy in the result-cum-detail marks sheet within 20 days from the receipt

¶16

¶17

thereof. The request in the case being belated was, therefore, considered and rejected.

¶18

In rejoinder, the petitioner has denied the contentions put contrary in reply, being wrong and while reiterating the case as set forth in the writ petition, has come forward with the version that the request for correction of the name of his mother could have only been made on coming to know about the same wrongly entered by the respondents in the records.

¶19

On hearing learned counsel representing the parties on both sides and also going through the records, admittedly, the petitioner in the admission form submitted to the respondents had entered his mother’s name as Phulam Devi. The same was not her correct name because as per the records, his mother’s correct name is Phulma Devi. According to him, the admission form he submitted, was accompanied by school leaving certificate, in which the name of his mother is recorded as Phulma Devi. There is no denial on behalf of the respondents that the admission form the petitioner submitted was not accompanied by school leaving certificate. Therefore, no doubt, the petitioner had entered wrong name of his mother in the admission form, however, the enclosure to the admission form was carrying her correct name. It seems that the school leaving certificate escaped the notice of the respondents and his mother’s name came to be entered in the records of the school on the basis of the information given in the admission form. It is not the case of the respondents that the omission on the part of the petitioner to mention incorrect name of his mother was not deliberate or intentional, therefore, the same was bonafide and un-

¶20

¶21

intentional and necessary correction in the records should have been made.

¶22

Now, if coming to another aspect of the matter, no doubt, as per the instructions Annexure R-2 (colly.) a request for correction in the name of the candidate/father/mother in the records of the school can be entertained if made within three years from the date of registration. Item No. 3.3. of the Procedure in this regard is relevant which reads thus:

¶23

3.3 CORRECTION IN THE DATE OF BIRTH OF LEARNER

¶24

(i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the NIOS records shall be made. However, correction to rectify the genuine typographical error/ factual errors can be made. (ii) Application for correction in date of birth can be considered within three years from the date of registration in NIOS but prior to appearing in the first examination.

¶25

(iii) Correction in the Date of Birth of a candidate in case of a genuine clerical error(s) will be made with the approval of Director (SSS) if it is established to the satisfaction that wrong entry was made in the Admission Form of the candidate.

¶26

(iv) The Application for correction in the date of birth should be submitted to the concerned Regional Centre of NIOS along with the following documents:-

¶27

(a) Attested copy of the admission form of the Candidate.

¶28

(b) Attested copy of Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Authority or the District Office of the Registrar of Births and Deaths.

¶29

(c) SLC/TC/ indicating the Date of Birth of the Candidate issued by the last formal School attended by the applicant. In case of Govt. School, SLC/TC should be signed by the Principal concerned. In case of Private School, it 13 : Rules, Regulations & Guidelines for Effective Corrections in Admission Records of NIOS should be countersigned by the Competent Authority of

¶30

¶31

State’s Education Department or by the District Education Officer.

¶32

(d) In case of orphan/juvenile/Street Children the MedicalLegal Certificate be provided as proof of Date of Birth.

¶33

(e) Attested photocopies of any other official documents such as Passport, voter I-Card, Aadhar Card etc. Old incorrect documents (certificate/ mark sheet/registration card) in original issued by NIOS.

¶34

(f) Payment of prescribed fee of Rs. 100/-.”

¶35

The petitioner, however, had an occasion to approach the respondents for correction of date of birth only after coming to know that in the records, his mother’s correct name has not been entered by the respondents. He came to know about this mistake only on the receipt of the marks sheet Annexure P-2 which is dated 5.6.2015. He, therefore, is justified in claiming that the prayer qua his mother’s name in the record of the school came to his notice in the month of June, 2015 when he received the marks sheet Annexure P-2. Therefore, the period of 3 years, as find mention in item No. 3.3. of the Procedure reproduced supra, has to be reckoned from the date when he acquired the knowledge of recording of incorrect name of his mother in the records. The application for correction Annexure P-3 he made on prescribed proforma on 10.8.2015 is, therefore, well within the period of three years. The same, as such, could have not been rejected on the ground of being belated or time barred. 8. Now, if coming to note No. 6, appended allegedly on the reverse of the marks sheet Annexure P-2 supplied to the petitioner, the same is also without any substance for the reason that attested copy of marks

¶36

¶37

sheet Annexure P-2 does not carry any such note. Annexure R-2/1 to the reply though contains note No. 6, however the same deals with the correction of any mistake/discrepancy in the result and other data related to exam and perhaps not qua the correction of name of the parents of a candidate because had this note been made applicable to such correction also, there would have been no need to provide item No. 3.3 in the procedure. Therefore, on this score also, the respondents have failed to controvert the contentions made by the petitioner in this petition.

¶38

In view of what has been said hereinabove, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to correct the name of mother of the petitioner as Phulma Devi in the records of the school and supply him fresh result-cum-marks sheet, within two months from today. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶39

May 04, 2017, ( Dharam Chand Chaudhary ), (karan) Judge.

Ajay Kumar v. The Director National Institute of Open Schooling

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. The Director National Institute of Open Schooling

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhdeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Khyalu Ram Vs Mangla Nand

Ram Kali Vs Soma Devi

Sanjay Kumar Vs Vineet Kumar

Balinder Singh Vs State of Hp

Pushpender Thakur Vs State of Hp