Neelam Kumari v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15575 of 2025 ====================================================== Neelam Kumari, W/o Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, and D/o Sri Shatrughna Prasad Sahu, R/O Village- Jagarannathpur, P.O.- Siktiahi, P.S.- Babubarahi, Teghra, District- Madhubani (Bihar) 847227.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department of Education, Government of India. 2.

The Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) Delhi. 3.

The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. 4.

The Deputy Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) Regional Office, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

5.

The Deputy Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) Regional Office, Allahabad (U.P.) 6.

The Deputy Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.Se.E.) Regional Office, Patna.

7.

The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalay, Supaul (Saharsa). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prakash Mahto, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Additional Solicitor General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-11-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities for making necessary correction in the name of the father as Shatrughna Prasad Sahu in place of Shatrughna Prasad Sahai.

3. It is submitted that the mistake has occurred on account of wrong entry of the father's name in the admission

Patna High Court CWJC No.15575 of 2025(2) dt.13-11-2025 2/3 register, following which similar mistake in subsequent documentation and the results. Time without number the petitioner has approached before all the authorities concerned and the school, but to no effect. It is categorically stated that initially the petitioner had taken admission in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalay, Supaul in Class 6 on 13.07.1990. The transfer certificate issued from Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Raghopur - Simrahi, Supaul, the name of the father of the petitioner was rightly mentioned as Shatrughna Prasad Sahu, but on account of a clerical mistake, her father's name has been wrongly mentioned as Shatrughna Prasad Sahai in the admission register of Navodaya Vidyalay, Supaul, where she has taken a fresh admission.

On the application of the petitioner, the Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalay, Supaul vide letter dated 14.11.2023 made necessary correction and forwarded the same to the Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Ajmer (Rajasthan) including all the relevant enclosure, but no action has been taken till date, hence the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Binay Krishna Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Central Board of Secondary Education submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court after more than three decades and for this reason alone, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, taking a pragmatic view, he further

Patna High Court CWJC No.15575 of 2025(2) dt.13-11-2025 3/3 submits that the petitioner instead of approaching before the Regional Office, Allahabad has approached before the Regional Office, Ajmer, who is not the competent authority for correction in the matter.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties, this Court directs the petitioner to approach before the concerned school, who shall forward the application of the petitioner alongwith the necessary documents before the Regional Officer, Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad, who shall further consider the claim of the petitioner for correction of her father's name in the certificate, keeping in mind the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors., 2021 (7) SCC 535.

6. The present writ petition stands disposed off.

7. It is expected that the entire exercise must be completed preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U