Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.37939/2015(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DOMINIC SAVIO S/O AMBROSE K.L AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O. # 166, SHIVANNA-NAGANNA BUILDINGS THIPPENAHALLI MAIN ROAD NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU – 560 073. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.V.ANGADI, ADV.)
AND:
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 001.
KARNATAKA STATE SECONDARY
EDUCATION BOARD
MALLESHWARAM, 6TH CROSS
BENGALURU – 560 003.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU NORTH
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 002. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALL THE WRIT PETITION BY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-3 DATED 05.08.2015 (AS PER ANNEXURE- K) AND THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE DIRECTED TO ISSUE 2ND COPY OF THE ANNEXURE-A BY DULY INCORPORATING THE CORRECTED NAME OF THE PETITIONER AS DOMINIC SAVIO S/O AMBROSE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 05.08.2015 impugned at Annexure-K to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking that the respondents be directed to issue the second copy of Annexure-A by duly incorporating the correct name of the petitioner.
The petitioner contends that his correct full name is ‘Dominic Savio’. Since, at the first instance, his name and the name of his father had been wrongly spelt in the marks card issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Board, the petitioner had sought that the correction be made in that regard by showing his name as
‘Dominic S’. and the name of his father as ‘Ambrose K.L’.
The petitioner claims that such request had been permitted and as per the endorsement in Annexure-A, the correction had been effected however, in the second copy issued to him, same error has been continued except indicating the name of the father correctly. It is in that light, the petitioner had sought that the appropriate corrected second copy be issued to the petitioner. The respondents have however issued the endorsement at Annexure-K declining the request of the petitioner. The petitioner in that light is before this Court.
The learned Government Advocate on securing instructions would submit that though at the first instance, the correction as sought by the petitioner was permitted only insofar as correcting the spelling of the name as had been mentioned wrongly in the marks card, no further additions had been made. It is therefore contended that the initial ‘S’ which is indicated in the endorsement at Annexure-A is not an authorized
correction which had been made by the Department but, the petitioner appears to have interpolated the same.
Though such contention is putforth on behalf of the respondents, what is necessary to be considered at this point is as to whether the name of the petitioner is to be indicated as ‘Dominic S.’ in the second copy of the marks card which is sought by the petitioner. The fact that at the first instance, certain error had crept in the marks card is not in dispute. In that light, the indication of the name of the petitioner as ‘Dominic S.’ is to be considered.
The documents as available along with the petition would disclose that in the other official documents such as the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, the Adhaar Card, the Driving License and the Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Department indicates the name of the petitioner as ‘Dominic Savio’. It is in that view, the abbreviation ‘S’ is made to represent the surname ‘Savio’. If these aspects of the matter are kept in view, no undue advantage would
enure to the petitioner, if the correction is effected and the second copy accordingly is issued to the petitioner.
In that light, a direction is issued to the respondents to indicate the name of the petitioner correctly as ‘Dominic S.’ and the name of the father of the petitioner as ‘Ambrose K.L.’ in the records and issue the second copy of the marks card to the petitioner by correctly indicating the name in that fashion.
In order to enable the respondents to act pursuant to this order, the petitioner shall file a representation along with a copy of this order with the third respondent, who shall thereupon effect the corrections and issue appropriate second copy of the marks card to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but, not later than four weeks from the date on which the representation is filed. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE