Telangana High Court
Lanka Venkata Subramanya Sai Krishna ... vs The Government Of Telangana on 30 March, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.28898 of 2025
DATED 30TH MARCH, 2026
Between:
Lanka Venkata Subramanya Sai Krishna Nikhil
... Petitioner
AND
The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and two others
...Respondents
:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not correcting the typographical error occurred in the father's name column as Lanka Soujanya and mother's name column as Lanka Venkata Subramanya Prakash in the 10th class marks memo of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and un- constitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to do corrections of typographical error in the 10th class marks memo of the petitioner in the father's name column as Lanka Venkata Subramanya Prakash and in the mother's name column as Lanka Soujanya and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case"
2. Heard Mrs. G.Uma Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi wp_28898_2025 respondent No.1 and Mrs. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner studied his 10th Class in the 3rd respondent school and passed the 10th Class examination held from 27.02.2023 to 21.03.2023. After receiving the 10th Class marks memo, the petitioner applied for Intermediate studies in Tapasya College, Kothapeta. He further submitted that during certificate verification by the college authorities, it was noticed that there was a typographical error in the 10th Class marks memo in the columns relating to the names of the petitioner's parents. In the father's name column, the mother's name (Lanka Soujanya) was mentioned, and in the mother's name column, the father's name (Lanka Venkata Subramanya Prakash) was mentioned. He further submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner's father approached the 2nd respondent and submitted a representation along with the original 10th Class marks memo seeking correction of the said error. After receiving the marks memo, the 2nd respondent informed that the correction process would take two to three months. However, after six months, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner and returned the original marks memo, advising him to approach the 1st respondent for correction. 3
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi wp_28898_2025 On the advice of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner's father approached the 1st respondent and requested for correction of the said error. The 1st respondent advised him to submit the request through the official website. Thereafter, the petitioner's father again approached the 2nd respondent, submitted the prescribed format given by the 1st respondent, and requested the 2nd respondent to forward the same along with the marks memo. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent forwarded the request to the 1st respondent. However, the same was returned by the 1st respondent on the ground that it was not in the proper format. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent once again forwarded the request in the prescribed format to the 1st respondent in the month of May, 2025. However, there has been no response from the 1st respondent, except stating that the matter is pending. Even after the lapse of one and a half years, the 1st respondent has not corrected the names of the petitioner's parents in the marks memo, and the matter is still pending before the 1st respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit stating that, in order to initiate the process for correction of names, the respondent Board had sought certain documents from the petitioner. However, the respondent 4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi wp_28898_2025 Board has not yet received the said documents/information from the school. She further submitted that upon receipt of the said documents, the Board will process and, after obtaining approval from the competent authority, a revised certificate will be issued, subject to the payment of the requisite correction fee and surrender of the previous certificate to CBSE, Regional Office, Chennai.
5. Perused the record.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner passed the 10th Class examination conducted from 27.02.2023 to 21.03.2023 while studying in the 3rd respondent school. After receipt of the marks memo, when the petitioner applied for Intermediate studies, it was noticed during certificate verification that there was a typographical error in the names of the petitioner's parents in the marks memo, wherein the mother's name was mentioned in the father's name column and the father's name was mentioned in the mother's name column. It is the specific case of the petitioner that immediately after noticing the said error, the petitioner's father approached the concerned authorities and submitted a representation along with the original marks memo seeking correction of the said mistake. However, despite 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi wp_28898_2025 approaching the authorities repeatedly and submitting the required formats, the correction has not been carried out so far and the matter has been pending for more than one and a half years. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, in the counter affidavit, submitted that the Board had sought certain documents to initiate the correction process and that upon receipt of the said documents, the Board would process the request and issue a revised certificate after obtaining approval from the competent authority, subject to payment of the requisite correction fee and surrender of the previous certificate.
07. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the error in the marks memo appears to be purely typographical in nature and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for such an error. Since the petitioner has already approached the authorities for correction and the matter has been pending for a considerable period, the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for rectification of the mistake within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
08. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
6
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi wp_28898_2025 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 30.03.2026 Ksk