Disposed

Andrews v. the Director

Madras HC26 Apr 2023WP(MD)/1365/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking correction of the petitioner's date of birth in educational certificates. The Court identified the Chief Educational Officer as the competent authority under a Government Order and impleaded him. The petition stands disposed of with directions to present a fresh representation within the stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation to the impleaded Chief Educational Officer within five days; petitioner to be given notice and a considered decision within eight weeks.

Andrews Vs the Director — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 26.04.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.1365 of 2023

Andrews

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Director, Directorate of School Education, No.17, College Road, Thousand Lights West, Thousand Lights, Subba Road Avenue, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Director of Government Examination, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.

¶11

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶12

4.The District Educational Officer, Office of District Education, Thoothukudi District.

¶13

5.The Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli.

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

6.The Principal, Government Law College, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

7.The Commissioner, Office of the Corporation Commissioner, Thoothukudi District.

¶18

8.The Village Administrative Officer, Palangulam, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶19

(R3 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 26.04.2023)

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to alter the petitioner's date of birth as 17.09.1995 instead of 13.05.1994 in the mark sheet of Secondary School Leaving Certificate, Higher Secondary Course Certificate, Decree Certificate in bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Transfer Certificate by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.08.2021.

¶21

For Petitioner :Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For R1 to R5, R7 and R8:Mr.Ramesh Government Advocate For R6 :Ms.N.Sumitha for M/s.Ajmal Associates *****

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus

¶24

seeking a direction to the respondents to alter the date of birth of the

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/6

¶27

petitioner from 13.05.1994 to 17.09.1995 in the school certificates and other educational certificates of the petitioner herein.

¶28

2.Heard Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 5, R7 and 8 and Ms.N.Sumitha, learned Counsel for the sixth respondent.

¶29

3.In this connection, the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed G.O.Ms.No.177, School Education Department, dated 23.12.2021, wherein, it had been stated that the Chief Educational Officer of the District is the competent authority to examine any representation of such nature. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not impleaded the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, as respondent. In view of the fact that he alone can examine the representation given by the petitioner herein, suo motu the Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, is impleaded as the third respondent in the Writ Petition. Registry to carry out necessary amendments. Consequent to that, the respondents 3 to 7 may be rearranged as respondents 4 to 8.

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

4.The petitioner may give a fresh representation to the newly impleaded third respondent/Chief Educational Officer at Tuticorin and the representation must be given on or before 15.05.2023. On receipt of the said representation, the Chief Educational Officer at Tuticorin may act in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.177, School Education Department, dated 23.12.2021, issue notice to the petitioner, examine the certificates of the petitioner, and then take a considered decision. The said exercise may be completed within a period of eight weeks from date on which which the petitioner gives a fresh representation.

¶33

5.The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Index :Yes / No 26.04.2023 Internet :Yes NCC : Yes/No

¶35

cmr

¶36

4/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

¶39

1.The Director, Directorate of School Education, No.17, College Road, Thousand Lights West, Thousand Lights, Subba Road Avenue, Nungambakka, Chennai.

¶40

2.The Director of Government Examination, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.

¶41

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶42

4.The District Educational Officer, Office of District Education, Thoothukudi District.

¶43

5.The Principal, Government Law College, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶44

6.The Commissioner, Office of the Corporation Commissioner, Thoothukudi District.

¶45

7.The Village Administrative Officer, Palangulam, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶46

5/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶49

cmr

¶50

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1365 of 2022

¶51

26.04.2023

¶52

6/6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Andrews v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andrews 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

M/s. Csb Construction Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Jonsy Mary (Wrongly mentioned) Vs The Government of India

Karuppiah .S.P.D Vs The Superintending Engineer

Arshiya Fathima.S Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt

Nithya Vs The Executive Officer

Marudhamuthu.v Vs the District Collector