Suminta Devi v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13645 of 2019 ====================================================== Suminta Devi Wife of Tarun Kumar Resident of Village-Telari Tola, Kashibigha, Block and P.S.-Nimchak Bathani, District-Gaya... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Chairman, Bank Harding Road, Quarter No. 17, Patna-1 2.

The Chairman Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bank Harding Road, Quarter No. 17, Patna-1 3.

The Secretary Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bank Harding Road, Quarter No. 17, Patna-1 4.

The Examination Controller Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bank Harding Road, Quarter No. 17, Patna-1 5.

The Deputy Examination Controller Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bank Harding Road, Quarter No. 17, Patna-1 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Satyam Shivam Sundaram For BSSB :

Mr. S.S. Sundram Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 08-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board. From Annexure-1 it appears that the actual name of the petitioner is Suminta Devi but the certificate was issued by Sanskrit Shiksha Board in the name of Soni Kumari. The error was committed by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board in the name of Soni Kumari and as such Sanskrit Shiksha Board is under obligation to rectify its mistake.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board is taking plea that for correction in the record of

Patna High Court CWJC No.13645 of 2019(2) dt.08-07-2019 2/2 the Sanskrit Shiksha Board is permissible only if the petitioner approaches Sanskrit Shiksha Board through the school. From perusal of the Annexure-1 which is admittedly the admit card issued by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board, the Court is of the considered view that error was committed by the Board and therefore it is solemn duty of the Board to make necessary correction in their own record in accordance with Annexure-1. Necessary correction in the certificate be carried out by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board with a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order otherwise the Sanskrit Shiksha Board has to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to this petitioner.

The objection of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board that the correction would be subject to the scrutiny as to the genuineness of Annexure-1 and 4. Such objection appears to be absurd as no one has questioned the genuineness of Annexure-1 or 4. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U