Alternative remedy of civil suit does not bar writ jurisdiction for correcting educational mark-sheets.

The appellant, a student, completed her Class 10th in 2022 and Class 12th in 2024 under the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education

In 2023, the appellant’s mother officially changed her name from “Pratibha Shyamkunwar” to “Pratibha Bauddh” following her adoption of Buddhism, a change duly notified in the Gazette of India

Consequently, the appellant's Class 5th, 8th, and 12th mark-sheets reflected the updated name, but the Class 10th mark-sheet retained the former name

The Registrar of the Board rejected the appellant's application for amendment on 15.05.2025, stating that regulations allow only one-time minor spelling corrections and prohibit substantive name changes

The appellant challenged this rejection via W.P.(C) No. 4476 of 2025, which a learned Single Judge dismissed in limine on 02.09.2025, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through a civil suit for declaration

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy without considering the efficacy of such a remedy in the specific facts of the case

2. Whether the respondent Board was justified in refusing to amend the mother’s name in the Class 10th mark-sheet despite official Gazette notification and consistency in other educational records

the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of discretion and convenience rather than a rule of law or a bar to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107, which establish that writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an alternative remedy if the impugned action is arbitrary or the remedy is not efficacious

M/s Radha Krishna Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 771 to affirm that the High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition to prevent manifest injustice

The Division Bench observed that the controversy was narrow and did not involve disputed questions of fact, as the mother’s name change was supported by a Gazette notification and reflected in subsequent mark-sheets

The Court reasoned that relegating a student to a lengthy civil suit for a declaration of name change—already legally finalized via Gazette—does not constitute an "efficacious" remedy, especially given the impact on her future educational and career prospects

The Bench found that the Board’s rejection stemmed from a misapplication of governing instructions and a failure to distinguish between a "clerical correction" and a substantive "amendment" necessitated by legal name changes

Consequently, the learned Single Judge’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction was deemed unjustified

The Court held that the availability of a civil suit is not an absolute bar when administrative actions regarding educational records are arbitrary or lead to inconsistency in official documents

The respondents were directed to process the appellant’s application and amend her mother’s name in the Class 10th mark-sheet from “Pratibha Shyamkunwar” to “Pratibha Bauddh” to ensure uniformity with her other academic records

This exercise must be completed within 60 days of receipt of the order