RAMA KANT TIWARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Examination Board.

(2.) THIS is second time when petitioner moved this Court for correction of name of his father in the matriculation certificate issued by the respondent Bihar School Examination Board. Petitioner appeared in the Boards examination in 1998. Due to inadvertence, fathers name of the petitioner was wrongly written as Rabindra Tiwari instead of Rabindra Nath Tiwari. Petitioner sent several letters requesting the Board to correct the name of his father, but nothing was done. Having no alternative, petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 334 of 2001. This Court taking into consideration the fact that even in the provisional certificate issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, fathers name of the petitioner was correctly mentioned as Rabindra Nath Tiwari and also considering that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa enquired the matter in detail and after full satisfaction directed the District Superintendent of Education to make a request to the respondent -Board for correction of the certificate of the petitioner with regard to his fathers name., dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Secretary of the Board to consider the case of the petitioner and take decision for correction of the certificate within 30 days.

(3.) MR . A.R. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Board drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Boards regulation quoted in the counter affidavit and submitted that there is no provision for correction of fathers name of the candidate. From perusal of the regulation as quoted in the counter affidavit, it appears that there is provisions for correction of the candidates name, if application to that effect is filed before one month from the date of commencement of examination or after six months from the date of publication of result. When there is no provision in the regulation for correction of the fathers name of the candidate then the Secretary was bound to comply the direction issued by this Court passed on 10.10.2001 in CWJC No. 334/2001. The Secretary appears to have not taken the matter seriously and he has rejected the application. Because of inaction on the part of the respondents and also by not giving due regard to the Courts order, petitioner has been unnecessary harassed for more than 5 -6 years. There is nothing on the record nor is the case of the respondents that person named as Rabindra Nath Tiwari is not the father of the petitioner nor there is any averments in the counter affidavit that the contention of the petitioner that due to inadvertence the full name was not written in Admission Record, and therefore the respondents were not justified in lingering the matter for about 5 -6 years.