Lanka Venkata Subramanya Sai Krishna ... vs The Government Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 140 Tel

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

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.

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

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

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.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi wp_28898_2025

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 30.03.2026 Ksk