Numan Khan v. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad University Of Technology And ORS.

Item.11 18.03.2025 WPA 25563 of 2024 Numan Khan -vsMaulana Abdul Kalam Azad University & ors. Mr. Saurabh Guhathakurata Mr. Abhratanu Sarkar ...for the petitioner Mr. Suranjan Dasgupta Mr. Avijit Chakraborty ...for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Mani Sankar Chattopadhyay ...for the College Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the ssi Ct. 17 petitioner is taken on record.

Copy of the same is handed over to the learned counsel for the University.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner had changed his name from Numan Mukhtar Khan to Numan Khan. The middle name Mukhtar was the petitioner's father name. It is an usual practice to keep the father's name in the middle at some places. This change was intimated to the respondent College so that the prayer and necessary papers may be transmitted to the University for necessary alteration in name. But, the University has not effected such change in name.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent College submits that they had intimated the University

about the change in due course. But, the University was sitting tight over it.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that the application for name change was not made properly before the University. In fact, there is a time period within which such application has to be made i.e., during the studentship.

One wonders what could be the reason for having such rule that after studentship name change cannot be effected.

It appears that relevant documents were not available with the University, as claimed by them. Now that the documents pertaining to the name change of the petitioner are made available by the petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit, there should be no problem for the University to consider the petitioner's prayer for name change.

In view of the above, let the University consider the petitioner's prayer for effecting name change and issuing a corrected certificate in this regard after considering the documents produced by the petitioner regarding such name change and upon hearing the petitioner when the petitioner shall have an opportunity to produce the original documents. In the event such representation is made before the University within a fortnight from this date, the University shall decide upon the issue within six weeks from such date and communicate the outcome to the petitioner

within a week thereafter.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

As affidavits were not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Jay Sengupta, J.)