Authorities must correct undisputed errors in school records without requiring a civil suit.

The petitioner sought correction of her name in the school records for Classes 1 to 3 from “Evlan Priskilarani” to “Evilin Priskilarani.”

Her later school and college records reflected the latter name.

After the Head Master and Block Education Officer forwarded her request, the Deputy Director of Public Instruction issued an endorsement directing her to approach the Civil Court.

The petitioner challenged that endorsement and sought correction of her name and address, citing the need to obtain a rural certificate for a teacher-recruitment process.

The Court noted that the name was correctly recorded from Class 4 onwards and that no party opposed the requested name correction.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs, including mandamus, to remedy an unlawful administrative refusal.

The Court relied on *Kaveri V. v. Block Education Officer and Others*, W.P. No. 22075/2025, and the principles discussed there from *Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) v. C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) and Others*, (2021) 7 SCC 535.

Those principles distinguish a correction supported by public documents from a later-acquired name unsupported by existing records; the former may be considered on its documentary basis, while the latter may require a court declaration and other prescribed safeguards.

The Court found that the discrepancy was confined to the petitioner’s early school records, while her records from Class 4 onwards showed “Evilin Priskilarani.”

In the absence of any dispute or objection about her name, the Court considered a civil suit unnecessary and found that correction would cause no prejudice to the parties.

Applying the approach in *Kaveri V.* and the principles discussed in *Jigya Yadav*, it held that the authorities should correct the records rather than require the petitioner to seek a declaration from the Civil Court.

The order addressed correction of the petitioner’s name; it did not expressly direct correction of her address.

It issued mandamus directing the Deputy Director to pass orders correcting the petitioner’s name as requested, and directed the Block Education Officer and Head Master thereafter to correct the school records and issue the rural certificate without further delay.

No order was made as to costs.