S. Sathishkumar v. The Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.Sathishkumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary, State Board of School Examinations, Chennai.
2.The Principal, Mannar Thirumalai Naicker College, Pasumalai, Madurai-625 004.
... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2014 and 29.12.2014 and to issue a correct name of the petitioner's father as P. SOUNDARARAJAN instead of B. SOUNDIRARAJ and also shown the correct name in School Certificates namely Transfer-cum-Conduct Certificate to consider the representation within stipulated time by this Court.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Subramanian For R1 : Mr.J.John Radadurai Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.S.Seenivasagam
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus as against the respondents herein to consider the representations of the writ petitioner, dated 27.11.2014 and 29.12.2014 to the effect to the correct name of the writ petitioner's father as P.Soundararajan.
2. In the S.S.L.C. and Higher Secondary Transfer Certificates, the name of the writ petitioner's father was mentioned as B.Soundiraraj. Hence, he has given representation to the first respondent and the second respondent herein.
3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, they have simply carried out what was mentioned in the Transfer Certificate issued by Pasumalai Higher Secondary School, Madurai, in which, the writ petitioner had studied Higher Secondary 2/6
Course. He further contends that there was no error on their part. Unless the S.S.L.C. and Higher Secondary Transfer Certificates are altered, they are not in a position to effect the changes in the Transfer Certificate issued to the writ petitioner by the second respondent College.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits that the writ petitioner at the time of appearing for the S.S.L.C. examination ought to have corrected the name of his father and verified the same before appearing for the examination.
5. However, the contention of the writ petitioner is that his father's name is erroneously entered and he had requested alteration in the Transfer Certificate.
6. It is for the first respondent to decide whether they can make alteration. Perusal of the S.S.L.C. and Higher Secondary mark sheet indicates that there is no reference about the name of the writ petitioner's father. Hence, it is clear that the request is to make alteration only in the Transfer Certificate issued by the concerned Schools. It is for the first respondent to consider whether they can issue any direction to the 3/6
concerned Schools to alter the name of the writ petitioner's father in the Transfer Certificates issued by the concerned Schools by considering the respresentation of the writ petitioner.
7. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, no orders could be passed as against the second respondent College, unless the writ petitioner produces the amended Transfer Certificate of the Higher Secondary Course. However, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
22.11.2022 Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No csm 4/6
To 1.The Secretary, State Board of School Examinations, Chennai.
5/6
R.
VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
csm Order made in Dated: 22.11.2022 6/6