Allowed

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala v. The Union of India

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021WP/17254/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of date of birth discrepancy between school records and passport via writ petition. High Court directed authorities to consider older documents and complete correction within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of date of birth correction application considering passport and Gram Panchayat certificate within four weeks.

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala Vs The Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17254 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala, S/o. Praveen Kumar Mulkala, Aged about^'lg yrs, Occ. Student, FUo. P12lP, F 10'1 , Sy. No.6-104-1-2 Sadguru Sai Residency, Vennalagadda, Suchitra, Medchal, Rangareddy District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, (School Education and Literacy), Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of lndia, Delhi1 10092

¶11

The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education Shiksha Kendra 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-1 10092

¶12

The Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education Chennai-600040

¶13

The Principal-cum Correspondent, St. Peters High School Sy. No.2, Seetarampur, Bowenpally Secunderabad-50001 1

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Artrcle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAIUUS in not considering the representation of the Petitioners father dated 0803-2019 forwarding representation to Respondent No.4 dated 20-03-20'19 in contemplation of the records of the Primary School, Passport of the Petitioner all dated as 17 -03-2002 is in contradiction to the date 17-03-2003 recorded with Respondent No.4, is as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, unconstitutiona I, against to the principles of natural justice.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondents No. 2 to 4 to consrder the period for submitting the correction of date of birth in contemplation to the representation filed by the Petitioner on dated 20-032019, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to receive the documents i.e. (1). IELTS Test Report Form OS|O9|2O2O, (2). Overseas Student confirmatron-of Enrolment (coE) Australian Government, Department of education, skills and Development daled 2411112020, as additional ocuments in the above writ petition.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF²⁰²¹

¶21

Petition under^{s sction 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit iil"d in .rppo,^{of the petition,ine High Court may be pleasedto expedite the} oui" ot n".iing^{in'w.r .uo.t zz 54 ol 2O2Oto any nearest date to the convenience of} the Hon'ble Court.

¶22

Counsel for the^Petiti, 'nerSRl.^{V VENKATAKUMAR}

¶23

Counsel for^{the Resp,} 'ndent^{No. 1: SRI' N' RAJESHWAR RAO' ASST'SOLICITOR} GENERAL

¶24

Counsel for^{the Resp,} 'ndent^{Nos. 2 & 3: SMT'A' CHAYA DEVI}

¶25

Counsel for the^Respr 'ndent^{No. 4: SRI' L' RAVI KUMAR}

¶26

The Court made^{the fr llowing:}

¶27

I I

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No,17254 of 2O2O

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Fleard Mr. V. Venkata Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, lvlr. Namavarapu Rajeswara Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.1, Smt. A Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 and lr4r. L, Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶32

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondents No.1 to 3 are not considering the representation of his father dated 08.03.2019 forwarded through the respondent No.4 vide letter dated 20.03.2019 for correction of his date of birth from 17.03.2003 to 17.03.2002 in the records of the respondents No.3 and 4. Hence, a direction is sought to them to consider the representation dated 08.03.2019 for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application of the father of the petitioner, it was stated that in the 10!h class memo of the petitioner, his date of birth is shown as 17.03.2003 but.in his old and new passport his date of birth is shown as 17.03.2002. However, it appears there was some communication gap and some interpolations were made and the date was shown in his application form as 17.03.2003, He further submitted that though in the relevant column of the application the date was correctly shown as L7,03.2002, it is not known as to how 17.03.2003 was mentioned on the left sjde in blank space of the application form. It is stated that having realized the mistake, the representation dated 0g.03.2019 was submitted for correction of date of birth.

¶34

¶35

Learned :ounsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submitted^that the Supreme C rurt in IIGYA YADAV^{(minor) v. CBSE1 has laid down} guidelines for € ltertaining applications for correction of mistakes crept in the certificat:s issued by CBSE.^{Learned counselfor the petitioner} submitted that in the certificate^issued by the^{Grann Panchayat,} Uthkoor and P rssport issued, the^date of^{birth of the peiitioner is} reflected as 77. )3.2002, which^{is actual date of birth.}

¶36

In the cir:umstances, the^{writ petition is disposed directing the} respondents No 2 and 3 to dispose^{of the applicationof the petitioner} dated 08.03.2( 19 by taking into^{considerationthe date of birth} certificate issue^j by the Gram Panchayat,^{Uthkoordated 12.09,2002} and the passp( rt of the^petitioner bearing^{No.E3844820. Thesaid} exercise shall br completed within a^period of^{four (4) weeks from the} date of receipt c'a copy of this order.

¶37

Pending niscella neous^petitions, if a ny, shall stand closed

¶38

There shall be n r order as to costs.

¶39

SD/.R.KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE^COPY//

'1 . The Secretary,^{(: ichool Education and Literacy)' Ministry of HumanResource} of lndla'^D-ehi-110092 Development,^{U rion off} "oi'lC"o"onrn"nt 2 The Secretary,^{c entrateoali iisltono"vEducation Shiksha Kendra 2} .) ?;d**iatl:xlu3':[;^!""%nEducationchennai'600040 4 The Principal-c, Jilffi;; -B'ⁿ wenpallv^co"tpo1-'f"ni'!i Secunderabad-50001 ea",.:^r-r'gn 1^{schoolSv No 2'} a one CC^{to Sri. r Venkataiumar' Advocate[OPUC]} ^- 6. One CC to^{Sri l} ''^{nui"tn*ui illo' Asst SolicrtorGeneral [OPUC]} 7. One CC^{to Smt A Chaya Devi' Advocate[OPUC]} 6. X'# &;^{s;. iRavi kumar' Advocate[oPUCl} o Two CD^CoPies

'^{(2021) 7 scc 535}

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411212021

ORDER

WP.No.17254 ol 2020

z,S;1ffi5
/.
il'("'.:
Ii <br>) 3 iiq 2ll?1
,

¶50

Disposing of th -'WP Without costs.

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelam Rathan Kumar , Chintu Vs The State of Telangana

Nenavath Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

M.A. Razak Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Richa Holdings Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

M/s. United Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another

Arke Santhosh Vs State of Telangana and 3 Others