Allowed

Arthanarisami, v. The Regional Officer

Madras HC16 Feb 2016WP/22864/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted a writ of certiorari and mandamus holding that a minor spelling correction in school records did not alter the identity. The impugned rejection order was set aside, directing the respondents to amend the daughter's school records to reflect the correct name Arthanarisami within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.03.2015 set aside and directions issued to the first respondent to change the petitioner's name in his daughter's school certificate within three weeks.

Arthanarisami, Vs The Regional Officer — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.22864 of 2015

¶6

and MP.No.1 of 2015 and WMP.No.3785 of 2016

¶7

Arthanarisami. .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Regional Officer Central Board of Secondary Education, (Regional Office) New No.3, J Block, 16^th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40.

¶10

2.The Principal Sri Seshaas International Public School, Adivaram, Kondappanaickenpatti Post, Salem – 636 008. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.RO(M)/ CORRN/ REJECTION/2015/6440 dated 25.03.2015 and quash the same consequently direct the respondents to correct the name of the petitioner as Arthanarisami in the petitioner's daughter by name *A.AkshayaKeerthi school records and its connected records.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.C.Prakasam. For respondents : M/s.G.Nagarajan.

¶13

With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

2.The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.RO(M)/CORRN/REJECTION/2015/6440 dated 25.03.2015 and to quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to correct the name of the petitioner as

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Arthanarisami in the petitioner's daughter by name

¶17

*A.Akshaya Keerthi school records and its connected records.

¶18

3.The petitioner's daughter was born on 12.12.1997, her name was registered as *A.AkshayaKeerthi who is now studying in +2 in the second respondent school. The Salem Municipal Corporation registered his daughter's birth on 15.12.1997 and issued birth certificate, wherein the petitioner's name has been mentioned as Arthanarisamy instead of Arthanarisami. The last letter of the name was mentioned as “y” instead of “i”. The said mistake was crept in the second respondent school records of the petitioner's daughter. The petitioner's daughter also completed her 10^th standard, in the school certificates of the petitioner's daughter also the petitioner's name is mentioned as Arthanarisamy instead of Arthanarisami. The petitioner approached the second respondent to correct his name as Arthanarisami instead of Arthanarisamy in all the school records. The second respondent has forwarded the request of the petitioner to the first respondent. In reply, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2015, rejecting the request made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶19

4.Per contra, the first respondent in its counter stated that the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained in view of the fact that whatever particulars of the candidate including the parents name mentioned in the list of candidates are carried out in the certificate issued by the CBSE Board.

¶20

5.Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

6.Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion by changing the last letters of the petitioner's name from 'y' to “i” the name of the petitioner is not going to be changed totally. Hence, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.03.2015 is set aside and this Court directs the first respondent to change the name of the petitioner as Arthanarisami in the certificate of her daughter *A.AkshayaKeerthi , within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶24

-s/d- Assistant Registrar

¶25

*Order amended as per
order of this Court
dated 24/2/2016
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CSIV)
24/2/2016
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Regional Officer (To be substituted
Central Board of Secondary Education, (order already despatched
(Regional Office) ( on 18/02/2016
New No.3, J Block, 16 th Main Road,
Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40.
2.The Principal
Sri Seshaas International Public School,
Adivaram, Kondappanaickenpatti Post,
Salem – 636 008.
+3 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam Advocate sr.9751 and *11415 &11608
+1 cc to Mr.G.Nagarajan Advocate sr.10127
W.P.No.22864 of 2015.
aa18/02/2016
sns(co)
aa24/02/2016

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Arthanarisami, v. The Regional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arthanarisami, v. The Regional Officer

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

Ms.R.Mathibanu Vs The Registrar

A.Pushparaj Vs the Collector

A.Govindan Vs The Inspector General of

P. Rangan Vs the District Collector

N.Subramani Vs The Tashildar

Mrs. Meenakshi Arul Vs The Regional Passport officer