Disposed¶38

V.Sriparkavi v. The Regional Officer

Madras HC22 Apr 2026WP/15454/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 15454 of 2026; decided 22-04-2026; Justice M. Dhandapani; Article 226; writ of mandamus; CBSE; Regional Officer Chennai Region; rectification of father's name; spelling error; List of Candidates LOC; Class 10; Class 12 mark sheet; Transfer Certificate; Migration Certificate; representation dated 16.03.2026; authorisation letter; one week; disposed of; no costs; V. Sriparkavi; Venkatesa Kannabiran; Venkatesha Kannabiran; E.V. Chandru @ E. Chandrasekaran

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026, in accordance with law, within one week; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶38

V.Sriparkavi Vs The Regional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026, in accordance with law, within one week; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026 seeking rectification of the spelling error in her father's name. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Considering the limited prayer sought and to avoid further prejudice to the petitioner's academic career, it is just and proper to direct the respondent to consider the representation on merits.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

This Court directs the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026 in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of the order.

¶34-37

Key takeaways

This Court recorded that the respondent is the competent authority to carry out corrections in the Board records.obiter¶28
On the materials produced, the Court observed the father's name correctly spelt as Venkatesa Kannabiran with the error originating at the LOC stage in Class 10 and reflecting into all subsequent records, causing hardship.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 15454 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras, per M. Dhandapani, J., decided 22-04-2026. V. Sriparkavi, a second-year B.Com. student, filed under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Regional Officer, CBSE Chennai Region to consider her representation dated 16.03.2026 for rectifying a spelling error in her father's name. Per the petition, the error arose at the List of Candidates (LOC) stage of the Class 10 CBSE examination and propagated into the Class 12 mark sheet, Transfer Certificate, Migration Certificate and college records; she was restrained from a semester examination until the school issued an authorisation letter dated 16.03.2026. Recording that the respondent is the competent authority to carry out corrections in Board records, the Court directed it to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation, in accordance with law, within one week; the writ petition was disposed of with no costs.

¶1

WP No. 15454 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 15454 of 2026

¶7

V.Sriparkavi D/o.N.Venkatesha Kannabiran, No.21/2, Site No.49A, Annai Velankanni Nagar, Near To park, Sowripalayam, Coimbatore South, Tamil Nadu-641 028

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Regional Officer Central Board of Secondary Education, Chennai Region, Plot No.1630A, J Block, 15th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner given to rectify the error in her fathers name For Petitioner(s): Mr. E.V.Chandru @ E.Chandrasekaran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner given to rectify the

¶15

error in her fathers name

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is pursuing a second

¶17

Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 15454 of 2026

¶20

year B.Com., degree at Bengaluru. A spelling mistake occurred in her father’s name during the Class 10 CBSE Board Examination process, at the stage of preparing the List of Candidates(LOC). The petitioner's father's name was erroneously entered wrongly by the School as ''Venkatesa Kannabiran'' instead of ''Venkatesha Kannabiran'' . After 10th examination, the petitioner and her parents approached the respondent to rectify the error in the petitioner's father's name in all academic records. Despite several representations by the petitioner and the school, the same incorrect spelling was reflected in the Class 12 mark sheet. Consequently, the same incorrect spelling was carried forward into the Transfer Certificate (TC) and also Migration Certificate issued by the respondent. Though the petitioner informed the college authorities about the error, they expressed their inability to correct it , as they were bound to enter the name exactly as mentioned in the Board mark sheets. Hence, the petitioner’s college records also reflect the incorrect spelling. During the last semester, the petitioner was restrained from writing the semester examinations due to the discrepancy in her father’s name. Thereafter, the school authorities issued an authorisation letter dated 16.03.2026 based on which the college permitted the petitioner to write the examination. The petitioner approached the respondent in several times, including on 16.03.2026 to rectify the spelling of her father’s name in the 10^th and 12^th mark sheets and in the Migration Certificate. However, the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶21

__________ Page2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 15454 of 2026

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may

¶25

direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 16.03.2026 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

The petitioner has produced materials to show that her father’s name is correctly spelt as Venkatesa Kannabiran and that the error Venkatesha Kannabiran originated at the LOC stage in Class 10. The error has reflected into all subsequent academic records, including class 12 Mark sheets, Transfer certificate and Migration Certificate and college records, causing hardship to the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner has made a representation on 16.03.2026 to the respondent seeking correction. The respondent is the competent authority to carry out corrections in the Board records.

¶29