MUSFINA Vs. CONTROLLER OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner is said to have submitted an application before the second respondent seeking correction of her name as 'Musfeena.C.A.' in the place of 'Musfina.C.A.'. Complaining that the second respondent has not forwarded the said application to the first respondent, the petitioner, being minor, represented by her father and guardian, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in terms of Rule 3 Chapter VI of Kerala Education Rules (KER), the second respondent is bound to forward the application to the first respondent. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Ritha Thomas, 2010 2 ILR(Ker) 495, a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court.