The court emphasized the importance of rectifying genuine mistakes in official documents to avoid causing hardship to the petitioner and highlighted the exercise of inherent power by the Single Judge in allowing the correction of names in the certificate.

JUDGMENT

Sant Parkash, J. - Instant intra-court appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 06.03.2020 (A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was allowed. Further, prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2020 vide which the application for re-calling of the aforesaid order filed by the appellant-Board was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that father's name of respondent No.1-petitioner is "Varinder Kumar" and his mother's name is "Geeta Kumari", as recorded in his Birth Certificate. However, while submitting the details to the respondent-school, the names of his parents were recorded as "Varinder Kumar Bhagat" and "Geeta Bhagat" which were forwarded to the appellant-Board by the respondent-School and were recorded in the Secondary School Examination Certificate dated 03.06.2017. It is stated that respondent No. 1-petitioner made number of representations but ultimately appellant-Board rejected his case on the ground that the school record does not support the desired correction. Resultantly, respondent No.1-petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.22159-2018, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the appellants to change the name of his parents in his Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the appellant-Board.

3. The afore-mentioned writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.03.2020 (A-l) in view of the fact that as per the affidavits submitted by the parents of respondent No.1 petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant-Board was willing to make the necessary changes sought in the petition. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said order dated 06.03.2020 (A-l), the appellant-Board preferred a review application for re-calling of the said order, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Board submits that the concession was accorded by the appellant-Board as it was stated by respondent No.1-petitioner during the course of hearing of the writ petition that there was an inadvertent error in recording the details at the time of filling up of admission form. He further submits that upon receiving the certified copy of the impugned order dated 06.03.2020, the appellant-Board considered the matter afresh and it came to light that at the time of examination, the names of the parents of respondent No.1-petitioner were submitted to the appellant-Board as "Varinder Kumar Bhagat" and "Geeta Bhagat" and the same were duly reflected in the List of Candidates (LOS), which was prepared after having been signed by the candidate, i.e. respondent No.1-petitioner and his parents themselves. In these circumstances, the appellant-Board filed an application for re-calling of the impugned order 06.03.2020 (A-l), however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2020.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file including the orders passed by the learned Single Bench.

6. Before adverting to the matter in hand, it is noted that Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is an appeal by a petitioner against the decision of a Single Judge to another Bench of the same Court. It is an intra-court appeal in High Court. The scope of the LPA is limited to the extent whether the judgment under appeal is permissible in law and is in consonance with the settled canons of law. Reference in this regard can gainfully be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Narendra and Company Vs Workmen: 216(3) SCC 340, wherein it has been held that unless the Appellate Bench reaches to a conclusion that the finding of the learned Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same and there should be no interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge merely because another view or a better view is possible.

7. Moreover, a perusal of the impu