Disposed¶18

Biswajeet Behera @ Mohapatra v. the Secy. Bse, Odisha

Orissa HC6 Aug 2024WP(C)/3540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.3540 of 2023, decided 06.08.2024 by R.K. Pattanaik, J. — surname correction of petitioner and parents in School Admission Register maintained by BSE Odisha; reliance on 2019 (II) OLR (FB) 64 (Full Bench); decision stayed by Supreme Court in SLP No.27917 of 2019; writ disposed of with liberty to renew representation before BSE for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer before the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha for reconsideration of the correction of surnames, if permissible; no direction for correction issued at this stage. ¶18

Biswajeet Behera @ Mohapatra Vs the Secy. Bse, Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3540 of 2023

¶3

Biswajeet Behera @ Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The Secretary, BSE, Odisha and others …. Opposite party Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate

¶6

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

06.08.2024

(This matter is taken up through virtual mode)

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha (BSE).

¶13

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties to correct his surname and the surname of his parents as well in the School Admission Register maintained by opposite party No.3 from ‘Behera’ to ‘Mohapatra’.

¶14

Referring to a decision reported in 2019 (II) OLR (FB) 64 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such change in surname for the petitioner and his parents is permissible which was objected to earlier by Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the BSE on the ground that the said decision has been stayed by the Apex Court in SLP No.27917 of 2019.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid development having taken place with a stay by the Apex Court in SLP against the decision of the Full Bench, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

served to keep the matter pending instead to allow the petitioner to renew the prayer approaching the BSE. In other words, the Court is inclined to grant liberty in favour of the petitioner to renew such prayer to be reconsidered, if the same is permissible.

¶18