Nahida Bi vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'Ble Siddharth Nandan, J.

Heard Ms. Zeenat Aftab, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

In compliance of the order of this Court, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the Hon'ble court's order dated 29.09.2026, the petitioner published the notice in Amar Ujala newspaper dated 12.10.2026 with respect to the correction of her mother's name in her educational records i.e. High School and Intermediate mark sheet and certificate issued by the U.P. Board; and the same has also been placed on record along with the supplementary affidavit dated 01.11.2026.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking correction in the name of the mother of the petitioner from 'Khair Un Nisha' to 'Mehrulnisha'. It has been submitted that the Principal of Shamshi Girls Inter College, Rampur has also sent the relevant records before the respondent no.3. She has also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board Secondary Education and 2 Others; reported in 2014 3 ADJ 443; wherein a division bench of this court, while interpreting Regulation 7 as amended on 20.09.2013, had laid down a ratio that the requirement of moving the application within three years may not be required to be adhered to, wherein a correction pertains to a spelling mistake in the name of the candidate or his/her parents. For ready reference, Regulation 7 is reproduced below:

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel though has not disputed the ratio laid down in the case of Anand Singh (supra); but however he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and 2 Others Vs. Md. Sameer Rao passed in Special Appeal No. 459 of 2023, wherein a division bench of this court had set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge, where there was a change in name from 'Shahnawaz' to 'Md. Sameer Rao', as the provisions of Chapter XII Regulation 46 was applicable when there is a change in name; but has not disputed that when there is merely a correction in the spelling of the name, the ratio in the case of Anand Singh (supra) shall be applicable and the embargo of moving the application within a limitation of 3 Years, as provided under Regulation 7, shall not be applicable.

The Court is also of the opinion that the correction sought by the petitioner is clearly an inadvertent clerical error or omission in the name of the parent of the petitioner; and as such the ratio laid down in the case of Anand Singh (supra) is squarely applicable.

In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending; and by the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed off with a direction upon the Respondent No.3 to correct the name of the petitioner's mother in the educational record of High School as well as Intermediate mark sheet and certificate, to be corrected as 'Mehrulnisha' in place of 'Khair Un Nisha', strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the application.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.