Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11998
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
K.MANOHAR PAI – Appellant
Versus
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION – Respondent
WP(C)/14500/2021
The court upheld that corrections to clerical errors in records are essential for ensuring accurate representation of identity, particularly for adopted children.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Correction of Birth Records - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - Sec. 1, 2, 5 - The court ruled that clerical errors in school records must be rectified promptly, particularly in cases of adoption, emphasizing the maintaining of accurate legal identities based on the principle of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking correction of names on his daughter's secondary school certificate due to clerical mistakes by the school, as the parent's names were interchanged. The petition stems from the adoption of the minor girl and the resulting need to update the records accurately.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the clerical errors made by the school and the necessity to rectify them. Despite the 1st respondent’s opposition related to the adoption, the court emphasized that the correction should proceed based on the school's admission of error.
Issues: Whether the respondent must correct clerical errors in school records regarding an adopted child’s parents' names, as per the application made by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Clerical errors in school records must be corrected to reflect the true legal identity of the child, especially in adoption cases, as public records should not misrepresent an individual's parental identity.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of instructing the respondents to correct the school records accordingly.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 and P4 within a period of one month;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to carry out corrections in the entries of parents' names of the petitioner, in the school records and Exhibit P2 in tune with the Exhibit P1;
iii) to declare that the petitioner's daughter is entitled to get the correction of the parent's name entered in the school records including the Secondary School Certificate, based on the entries in the Exhibit P1;
iv) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay on the part of the 1st respondent in considering and passing orders on the application filed by the petitioner for effecting corrections in the entry of parents name in the Secondary School Examination certificate issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner and his wife adopted a minor girl namely Annapoorna Pai. K following Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act . Ext.P1 is the document showing the adoption. Thereafter the petitioner and his wife are the parents of the minor girl 'Annapoorna Pai. K'. The daughter of the petitioner completed her class X from the 2nd respondent school. While forwarding the parents details of the petitioner's daughter to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent erroneously entered the name of the petitioner at the place of mother's name and the petitioner's wife's name at the place of father's name. The said mistake occurred because of a clerical mistake on the part of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2 is the Secondary School Examination certificate. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent with an application requesting the 2nd respondent to effect changes to the entries with regard to the names of parents, in par with Ext.P1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner complied with the mandates made in Rule 69.1(ii) of the CBSE bye-law relating to the correction and change in the name. The application made by the petitioner was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. Exts.P3 and P4 are the application and the covering letter of the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same is not considered by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel takes me through Ext.P4 letter submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, in which it is stated that there is a clerical mistake from the side of the school and requested the 1st respondent to rectify the clerical error. The learned counsel submitted that there will be irreparable loss and difficulties to the petitioner's daughter, if the correction is not carried out.
5. The learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent opposed the same. The learned Standing counsel takes me through paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the statement filed in this case on 17.09.2021 and submitted that certain additional documents are necessary in this case because the petitioner's daughter is an adopted child.
6. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It will be better to extract the contents in Ext.P4 letter of the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent.
“It is brought to the kind attention of the Board that there is a clerical error in the mark sheet of our X standard student Miss.ANNA POORNA PAI K, Roll No.24170061, School Code 75078. In place of father's name is i.e.K MANOHAR PAI, mother's name is written and in place of mother's name i.e. K VRINDA M PAI father's name is written. I kindly apologies for the clerical mistake from our side and request to rectify
