Allowed

Makhan Din v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary School Education Deptt and Others.

J&K HC26 Dec 2022WP(C)/4442/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld a writ petition challenging the Board's rejection of a correction to the petitioner's father's name in school certificates. The Court quashed the impugned communication, directing the Board to reconsider the case within six weeks as the rejection was arbitrary and ignored the proviso allowing for warranted corrections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 05.03.2018 quashed; respondent-Board directed to accord effective reconsideration within six weeks.

Makhan Din Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th… — Education and Admissions | J&K HC (2022)

¶1

Sr. No. 71

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP(C) No. 4442/2019 CM No. 9405/2019

¶4

Makhan Din

¶5

….Petitioner/Appellant(s)

¶6

Through :- Mr. Roop Lal, Advocate.

V/s

UT of J&K & ors.

….Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. Ravinder Sharma, AAG for 1. Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate.

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI JUDGE

ORDER

26.12.2022

(ORAL)

In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has thrown challenge to the communication dated 05.03.2018 addressed by Assistant Secretary Certificates-JD, State Board of School Education, whereunder the correction in the father’s name of the petitioner has been declined and his claim rejected.

¶16

The petitioner states that the name of his father as recorded in the State Subject as also in the Aadhar Card has been rightly recorded as Sahab Din S/o Mussa but in the school records as well as in the certificates of 10^th and 12^th class issued by the respondent-Board, the same has been wrongly recorded as Kasham Din.

¶17

It is being stated by the petitioner that upon coming to know about the said error of recording his father’s name wrongly in the certificates issued by the respondent-Board, the petitioner applied to the

¶18

2 WP(C) No. 4442/2019

¶19

CM No. 9405/2019

¶20

respondent-Board in the prescribed format provided by Board for effecting corrections in the name of his father while submitting all relevant documents in support thereof as also depositing requisite amount of Rs. 1010/- as fee duly acknowledged by the respondentBoard.

¶21

It is being further stated that the respondents while rejecting his claim by way of impugned communication did not record any cogent and credible reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner but instead have acted arbitrarily thus resulting into grave prejudice to the rights and interests of the petitioner.

¶22

Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent-Board. The respondents while opposing the petition have placed reliance on notification No. 1-B of 1995 dated 06.02.1995 which inter alia provides that the name, parentage, date of birth and other particulars of any candidate registered with the Board for examination shall be final and shall not be subject to any change.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

Perusal of the notification (supra) pressed into service by the respondents dated 06.02.1995 would tend to show that the same is appended with two provisos. The first proviso appended thereto reads as under:

¶25

“Provided that the Board or any Committee nominated by it for this purpose may consider change in the registered particulars of any candidate, in case the same is warranted.”

¶26

3 WP(C) No. 4442/2019

¶27

CM No. 9405/2019

¶28

Proviso (supra) in explicit terms provides that the Board or its committee constituted for this purpose do have a power to consider the change in the registered particulars of a candidate in case the same is warranted although second proviso along with an explanation provides for certain errors in respect of registered particulars which cannot be corrected.

¶29

What emanates from the notification supra is that the power lies with the Board or its committee constituted for the purpose to effect corrections in the particulars of any candidate, of course, if same is warranted suggesting that if a candidate seeks correction in his registered particulars, the same has to be considered both objectively as well as subjectively.

¶30

Perusal of the impugned communication prima facie reveals that the respondents have overlooked the first proviso provided in the notification and have, in a mechanical manner, without assigning or spelling out any justifiable reason rejected the claim of the petitioner, as it is highly improbable that a candidate would seek correction of his registered correct particulars in the records of the Board as correction of the particulars could be sought by a candidate if the same are not correctly reflected or entered. The petitioner in the instant case seeks correction of his father’s name which as per State Subject is recorded as Sahab Din and the said name of the father of the petitioner even has been recorded in the Aadhar card of his father as well. The impugned communication, therefore, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances is not sustainable in law. The petition thus, merits to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and as a consequence whereof the

¶31

4 WP(C) No. 4442/2019

¶32

CM No. 9405/2019

¶33

impugned communication dated 05.03.2018 is quashed and the respondent-Board is directed to accord effective re-consideration to the case of the petitioner qua correction of his father’s name as sought by him in the records. Let the needful be done within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondents.

¶34

At this stage, Mr. Bali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 would candidly and fairly submit that the respondentBoard would carry out the order of this Court and effect necessary correction in the father’s name of the petitioner in its record. The fairness of Mr. Bali is appreciated and his statement is taken on record.

¶35

Disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE

¶37

JAMMU 26.12.2022 NARESH/PS

Makhan Din v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary School Education Deptt and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makhan Din v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary School Education Deptt and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhushan Khajuria Vs Union Territory of J and K Th Industries Deptt and Ors.

Ajay Kumar and Anr. Vs State Th.Home Deptt.and Ors.

Ashiq Ahmad Sheikh and Anr. Vs U.O.I.Th.Its Secy.Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr.

Abdul Ahad Ganai and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Finance Department)

Ashok Kumar Vs State Th. Education Deptt. and Ors.

Amardeep Singh and Ors. Vs U.O.I.Th. Min. of H.R.D. and Ors.