Dismissed

Musfina(Minor) v. Controller of Government Examinations

Kerala HC2 Dec 2014WP(C)/29837/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a minor for correction of her name in an SSLC certificate. The Court held that an amendment to the Kerala Education Rules via a 2009 notification made the Controller of Government Examinations the competent authority, not the District Educational Officer, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach the appropriate authority (Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examinations) if advised.

Musfina(Minor) Vs Controller of Government… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 29837 of 2014 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

MUSFINA (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KAREEM, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN, ABDUL KAREEM, CHERUVATTATH HOUSE, POST CHAMAKKALA, CHENTRAPPINI, THRISSUR - 680 687.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------------

¶12

1. CONTROLLER OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.

¶13

2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

¶14

CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 001.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,

¶17

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

¶18

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶19

4. HEAD MASTER,

¶20

GOVERNMENT MAPPILA H.S.S., CHAMAKALA,

¶21

THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 687.

¶22

R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

msv/

¶25

WP(C).No. 29837 of 2014 (D)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 03/08/2011.

¶29

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRIES IN THE PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, KOCHI.

¶30

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY THE RELEVANT ENTRIES IN THE AADHAAR CARD.

¶31

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLIHSED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 13/12/2013.

¶32

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ATTESTED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KODUNGALLUR DATED 31/12/2012.

¶33

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS/EX/BB4/21200/2014/CGF DATED 15/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTED S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Ms v/

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.29837 of 2014 D

¶42

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2014

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶45

Briefly stated, the petitioner is said to have submitted an application before the second respondent seeking correction of her name as 'Musfeena.C.A.' in the place of 'Musfina.C.A.'. Complaining that the second respondent has not forwarded the said application to the first respondent, the petitioner, being minor, represented by her father and guardian, has filed the present writ petition.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in terms of Rule 3 Chapter VI of Kerala Education Rules (KER), the second respondent is bound to

¶47

WPC 29837/14

¶48

¶49

forward the application to the first respondent. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Ritha Thomas (2010 (2) ILR (Ker.) 495), a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court.

¶50

The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has taken this Court through the provisions of KER and has submitted that the learned Division Bench rendered the judgment based on the rules holding the field then. According to him, in 2009 Rule 3 of Chapter VI KER underwent amendment to the extent of 'appropriate authority'. In that regard, he has further submitted that the Government issued a notification in G.O.(P)No.215/2009/ G.Edn. dated 16.11.2009 specifying the Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examinations to be the competent authority to receive the applications from the pupils who have registered for SSLC Examination.

¶51

Elaborating on his submissions, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner

¶52

WPC 29837/14

¶53

¶54

having registered for SSLC Examination in the past, though presently she is out of the school, she still requires to make her application to the Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examinations, rather than the second respondent.

¶55

It is evident that in the light of the notification dated 16.11.2009, the appropriate authority prescribed under Rule 3 of Chapter VI KER stands changed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made her application to the second respondent, who does not have any role to play, especially after 16.11.2009.

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, if advised, by filing a proper application before the said authority and pursue the matter further.

¶57

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶58

tkv

Musfina(Minor) v. Controller of Government Examinations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musfina(Minor) v. Controller of Government Examinations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K. Sajan Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

The Manager, Kambil Mopila Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Pratheek P.J. Vs Union of India

Shakeela Beevi Vs State of Kerala

C.J.Mathai Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.K.Sajeevu Vs Cochin Devaswom Board