Correction of School Records Mandated Upon Verification of Genuineness Despite Post-Schooling Delay Under Article 226.

The petitioner, an ex-student of Respondent No. 3 school, sought to correct her father's name in her School Leaving Certificate (SLC) issued in 2011.

While official government records list her father’s name as “Kaiyum Murtuja Husen,” the SLC erroneously recorded it as “Kaiyumhusain”.

The petitioner submitted oral and written representations to the school authorities on April 17, 2024, to rectify the error, but the school failed to act.

This discrepancy prevented the petitioner from proceeding with her passport application.

Consequently, she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct school authorities to correct errors in educational records despite the availability of alternative civil remedies.

2. Whether the respondent school is obligated to decide upon the petitioner’s representation for correction of her father’s name based on official government records.

The Court primarily relied upon the principles established in Vasudev Prahaladbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) GLR 1474.

This precedent dictates that when there is no dispute regarding the genuineness of official documents (such as birth certificates), a citizen should not be relegated to a lengthy civil suit for "genuine and petty" corrections; instead, the High Court may exercise its power under Article 226 to issue a direction for rectification.

The Court also referenced Muskanben Shabbirahemad Mansuri v. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board & Ors. (SCA No. 11510 of 2020).

The Court observed that the respondents, despite being served notice, did not appear to contest the authenticity of the petitioner’s government-issued identity proofs.

Since the genuineness of the documents was undisputed, the Court found the school's inaction caused "severe hardship" regarding the petitioner’s passport application.

Following the rationale in Vasudev (supra), the Court held that forcing the petitioner to seek a civil court decree for a clerical error would be inequitable.

The Court emphasized that since the representation dated April 17, 2024, was still pending, a writ of mandamus was appropriate to compel the authority to perform its duty.

It directed Respondent No. 3 to decide on the petitioner’s representation within eight weeks of receiving the order, specifically instructing them to mutate/correct the father’s name to "Kaiyum Murtuja Husen" and issue a fresh School Leaving Certificate in light of the Vasudev judgment.