Allowed

eleena satapathy v. cbse,bbsr

Orissa HC6 Feb 2023WP(C)/6957/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside a CBSE rejection order denying correction of a student's surname spelling (Satapathy vs Satpathy). The court held the error was clerical but rejected appeal earlier on technical grounds that might prejudice the student's career.

What did the court decide?

Set aside rejection order dated 05.03.2016; directed CBSE to allow application within eight weeks; petitioner to approach opposite party within two weeks.

eleena satapathy Vs cbse,bbsr — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6957 of 2016

¶3

Eleena Satapathy

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Prasanta Ku. Nanda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

CBSE, Bhubaneswar & others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.Tarananda Patanayak, Advocate for O.P.No.1 Mr.Dinesh Ku. Panda, Advocate for O.P.No.3.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

06.02.2023

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.Tarananda Patanayak, learned counsel appearing for C.B.S.E. and Dinesh Ku. Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3.

¶16

The present Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned rejection order dated 05.03.2016 issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7 and for a direction to Opposite Party No.1 to correct the surname of the Petitioner as ‘Satapathy’ instead of ‘Satpathy’ in all certificates issued by the School authority in respect of School Registration No.08305, CBSE Roll No.6109703 of 2014.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that while recording the name of the Petitioner, a mistake has been committed inadvertently by the concerned Clerical Assistant and in

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

place of ‘Satapathy’ it has been recorded as ‘Satpathy’. Accordingly, same mistake continued and eventually reflected in the certificate issued by the Board. This fact came to the notice of the guardian of the Petitioner and they applied for correction, however, the same has been rejected by the authority.

¶21

5, Mr.Tarananda Patanayak, learned counsel appearing for the CBSE Board on the other hand submitted that although he has not filed any Counter Affidavit in the present matter, however, by referring to Board’s Rule 69.1(ii) of Examination By-law the authorities have rejected the prayer of the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr.Patnayak learned counsel that since the Rule does not permit the authority to correct the name of the Petitioner and no fault is found on the authority for correction of name of the Petitioner in the certificate.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the view that essentially surname remains the same. However, while writing the same in the English one English alphabet ‘A’ has been missing i.e. because of writing a vernacular name in English letters. Further, this Court upon a careful consideration is also of the considered view that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on a very technical ground which might cause prejudice to the career of student-Petitioner.

¶23

Considering such submission this Court deems it proper to set aside the rejection order dated 05.03.2016 under Annexure-7 and further direct the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with fresh representation. In the event such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of in the light of the

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

observation made hereinabove. Accordingly, necessary correction be carried out in the certificate issued by the Board. Let the Petitioner approach within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. The Opposite Parties shall do well to carry out the correction within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.3 is also directed to provide necessary help to carry out the correction.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶29

(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶30

RKS

¶31

Page 3 of 3

eleena satapathy v. cbse,bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

eleena satapathy v. cbse,bbsr

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

Bijay Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Sujata Sarangi Vs Sunil Kumar Bansal, D.G.P, Headquarter, Buxibazar, Cuttack

Prashanta Panigrahi Vs Sridhar Nayak, Secy. Cum Regr. in Charge, Odisha Information Comn., Bbsr.

Kalyani Dixit Vs State and Ors.

Bijayanagar Grama Pa Vs State and Ors.

Nisakar Rout Vs State and Ors.