Allowed

Ansar Kodasseri v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/18076/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners requested correction of their name in educational records citing Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court quashed the rejection order and directed fresh consideration once government guidelines were notified.

What did the court decide?

Extension P10 order quashed; direction to respondents to reconsider Ext.P8 application afresh after guidelines framed in Nobin Paul judgment.

Ansar Kodasseri Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

ANSAR KODASSERI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED M., MELETHIL HOUSE, CHEMBRASSERI P. O., MALAPPURAM - 676521.

¶10

BY ADV VISHNU R.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶14

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, a clinical psychologist, was known by the name “Anshad M”. The SSLC certificate issued to him by the 2nd respondent also carry the very same name. He has chosen a new name as ‘Ansar Kodasseri’ by notifying in the official gazette as per the procedure prescribed for that purpose. The petitioner then approached the 1st respondent and filed Ext.P8 representation for correcting his name in the SSLC Book but the same stands rejected by Ext.P10 order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Sri.Vishnu R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE [2021 SCC Online SC 415] and it was urged that an individual must be in complete control of her/his name and law must enable the individual to retain as well as to exercise such control freely ‘for all times’. The learned counsel argued that such control would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to be recognised by a different name for a just cause. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, who is a clinical psychologist, intends to apply for a foreign licence to practice in United Kingdom and other countries and an additional gazette publication may arouse suspicion in the minds of the authorities overseas. It is further contended that the respondents cannot be heard to contend that they do not have a sanctioned procedure to enable the petitioner to change his name as per his wishes. The learned counsel would

¶21

WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

further contend that a learned single Judge of this Court in Nobin Paul v. State of Kerala [2021 (5) KHC 278], had directed the Government of Kerala to issue guidelines for change/substitution of the names of individuals in the educational records adverting to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE and come up with a sanctioned procedure within a period of three months. Once the aforesaid procedure is put in place as directed by this Court, Ext.P8 request made by the petitioner be ordered to be reconsidered is the submission.

¶24

Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the Government has constituted a committee to issue guidelines as directed by this Court in Nobin (supra). As and when the guidelines are notified as directed in the judgment, Ext.P8 application submitted by the petitioner will be reconsidered based on the materials presented and appropriate orders can be passed, is the submission.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that by judgment dated 16.7.2021, this Court has directed the Government to come up with a sanctioned procedure for changing the names of individuals in their educational records. It appears from the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the Government is coming up with guidelines in the light of the observations in Jigya Yadav (supra). The time granted by this Court is yet to expire.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this writ petition can be disposed of

¶27

WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

with the following directions.

¶30

a) Ext.P10 order will stand quashed.

¶31

b) There will be a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P8 application afresh after framing the guidelines as directed in

¶32

Nobin (supra) within the time specified by this Court in the said judgment. As and when Ext.P8 is taken up for fresh consideration, the petitioner shall be permitted to produce all the relevant records to facilitate the correction of his name. The needful shall be done expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this Judgment before the concerned respondent to ensure compliance.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

IAP

¶38

WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18076/2021

¶41

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

¶42

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI DATED 04.04.2019. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF SSLC BOOK OF PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE PUBLICATION VOLUME 4 DATED 28.04.2015. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF DRIVING LICENCE DATED 01.07.2015. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF AADHAR CARD DATED NIL. Exhibit P6 TRUE ONE AND THE SAME CERTIFICATE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 04.03.2020. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16549/2020 DATED 12.08.2020. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2021. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7356/2021 DATED 22.03.2021. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.2021. Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3832/2021 DATED 08.03.2021. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9386/2021 DATED 16.07.2021.

¶43

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL

Ansar Kodasseri v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansar Kodasseri v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Blooming Buds Junior School Vs Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

P Padmaja Devi Vs State of Kerala

Sreepathy Institute of Management and Technology Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Anitha Vs Sakunthala

Mathew Paul, Vs Fr. Jacob Kurian

Praveen V.C. Vs State of Kerala