Allowed

J.Deepak Prakash v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Dec 2015WP/38524/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the university's failure to rectify a name error in his academic records, arising from a typo in his admission affidavit despite identity documents showing the correct name. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the university to correct its records.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Petitioner directed to correct University records to reflect name J. Deepak Parashar instead of J. Deepk Prakash.

J.Deepak Prakash Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.38524 of 2015

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri S.Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 2^nd respondent.

¶4

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the action of 2^nd respondent in not rectifying his name in the college records. The petitioner’s name is J.Deepak Parashar. He joined the 2^nd respondent University in 2011 in the Center for Distance Education for pursuing Bachelor of Science course. In the application submitted by petitioner for admission to the said course to the 2^nd respondent, he clearly mentioned his name as J.Deepak Parashar. However, in a notarized affidavit submitted at the time of admission, the name of petitioner was mentioned as J.Deepk Prakash instead of J.Deepak Parashar.

¶5

3. The petitioner contends that in the Secondary School certificate, Senior Secondary School Examination certificate, Migration-cum-Transfer Certificate, National Institute of Open Schooling Certificate and even in his passport, his name is shown as J.Deepak Parashar, but the 2^nd respondent erroneously recorded his name in its

¶6

records as J.Deepak Prakash on the basis of the notarized affidavit given by him at the time of his admission into the above course. Petitioner contends that 2^nd respondent ought not to have placed reliance on the said notarized affidavit where the name indicated differed from the name of the petitioner in his application for admission and if it entertained any doubt, it ought to have asked him to furnish notarized affidavit with correct name. Petitioner contends that he had got issued a legal notice dt.17-06-2015 to 2^nd respondent to correctly record his name in the Transfer Certificate and other relevant records of the 2^nd respondent University, but the 2^nd respondent, by proceedings dt.2610-2015, refused to do so on basis of the incorrect name mentioned in the notarized affidavit filed by petitioner along with the application for admission.

¶7

4. Petitioner contends that this attitude of 2^nd respondent is affecting petitioner’s future pursuit of academic study and therefore 2^nd respondent should be directed to rectify its records to reflect the name of petitioner as J.Deepak Parashar and Transfer Certificate and other certificates be issued to petitioner with the correct name J.Deepak Parashar instead of J.Deepk Prakash.

¶8

5. Sri B.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing

¶9

Counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent states that 2^nd respondent would make appropriate correction in its records so as to reflect the name of petitioner as J.Deepak Parashar instead of J.Deepk Prakash and that erroneously proceedings dt.26-10-2015 have been issued by 2^nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request for the same.

¶10

6. In view of the said submission, the Writ Petition is allowed and 2^nd respondent is directed to rectify its records to reflect the name of petitioner as J.Deepak Parashar instead of J.Deepk Prakash. No costs.

¶11

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶13

Date: 14-12-2015 Vsv

J.Deepak Prakash v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Deepak Prakash v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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.Ganapathi , M.Venkata Ratnam Vs Sri Daya Sagar

Busani Babu Rao Varma, Vs Smt.K.Padmini

Sree Chaitanya Institute of Technological Sciences, Vs Government of Telangana

M/S. Sree Amrutha Narayana Agro Industries(Wgl 341), Vs Northern Power distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

V.Chinna Ramudu, Vs The Joint Collector

Shaik Rasheed Pasha Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited