Disposed

K.Murugammal, v. The Director

Madras HC6 Sept 2016WP/32553/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking correction of the petitioner's name in school mark sheets. The court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation for name change, directing the respondent authorities to dispose of it on merits within a stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider petitioners representation for name correction within four weeks.

K.Murugammal, Vs The Director — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 06-09-2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.32553 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 K.Murugammal .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Director Govt. Exams School Education DPI Compound, Nungambakkam Chennai. 2.The Secretary State Board of School Examination (SEC) DPI Compound Nungambakkam Chennai. 3.The Secretary State Board of School Examination (HR SEC) DPI Compound Nungambakkam Chennai. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Divisional Magistrate) Nagapattinuam Nagai District. 5.The Principal District Institute of Education and training Kurukkathi Nagai District. ... Respondents Prayer : The writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to correct the name of the petitioner as K.Murugammal in her X and XII standard Mark Sheets, which were issued by the second and the third respondents and issue fresh certificate within the stipulated time.

¶2

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

¶3

For Petitioner : M/s.S. Anbazhagan

¶4

For Respondents Nos.1 to 4 : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶5

For Respondent No.5 : No appearance

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

Heard the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶8

2.This writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to correct the name of the petitioner, as K.Murugammal, in her X and XII standard Mark Sheets, which were issued by the second and the third respondents and to issue fresh Mark Certificates within the stipulated time.

¶9

3.Though various grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, have submitted that it would suffice, if the petitioner is permitted to submit his representation seeking change of her name in the X and XII Mark Certificates, and on receipt of such representation, the first respondent may be directed to dispose of such representation, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time frame, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶10

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a representation seeking change of her name in X and XII Mark Certificates, as K.Murugammal, instead of K.Murugambal, along with the true copies of the said certificates, which require the change of name, and a copy of the letter of the District Educational Officer, Nagapattinam, dated 24.7.2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the first respondent shall consider and dispose of the same, taking into consideration of the recommendation made by the District Educational Officer, Nagapattinam, in his letter, dated 24.7.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as to the other persons concerned, if any.

¶11

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

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.

¶13

-s/d-

¶14

Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rnb
To
1.The Director
Govt. Exams
School Education
DPI Compound, Nungambakkam
Chennai.
2.The Secretary
State Board of School Examination (SEC)
DPI Compound
Nungambakkam
Chennai.
3.The Secretary
State Board of School Examination (HR SEC)
DPI Compound
Nungambakkam
Chennai.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer
(Sub Divisional Magistrate)
Nagapattinuam
Nagai District.
5.The Principal
District Institute of Education and training
Kurukkathi
Nagai District.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Anbazhagan Advocate sr 50508
Writ Petition No.32553 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶15

aa07/09/2016

¶16

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

K.Murugammal, v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Murugammal, v. The Director

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

R.Rajendran Vs The Inspector General of

R.Subbiah Naidu Vs The District Collector

P.Vanitha Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

Mrs.Uma Maheshwari Ramasamy, Vs The Tahsildar

K.M.Govindasamy, Vs The District Collector

D.Usha, Vs The Secretary to Government