The petitioners are siblings and they wanted to suffix the name of their father to their names and for that purpose, they submitted Ext.P6 (Ext.P6 in both writ petitions), before the Secretary of the second respondent. The said applications were rejected as per Ext.P7 (Ext.P7 in both writ petitions) assigning the reason that since their names were already corrected once, at their instance, correction for a second time is impermissible in the light of circular No.35845/R.D.3/2011/LSGD dated 1.2.2012. It is aggrieved by the said order of rejection that the captioned writ petitions have been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the light of the decision of this Court in Shipna Jose v. Registrar [2010(2) KLT 978].
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. A scanning of the averments in these writ petitions would reveal that the petitioners seek correction of their names as aforesaid. Evidently, the entry in the birth certificate does not tally with the entry in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioners produced as Ext.P3 in both the writ petitions. A perusal of the same would reveal that in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10117 of 2014, his name was entered therein as 'Vibin Paul' not as 'Vibin N.P'. In W.P.(C).No.10129 of 2014, the name of the petitioner was entered as 'Nithin Paul' and not as 'Nithin N.P'. In the birth register, the name of the petitioner in the former writ petition was entered as Vibin N.P and the name of the petitioner in the latter writ petition as Nithin N.P. As noticed hereinbefore, their applications for correction of names were rejected as per Ext.P7 assigning the reason that it is impermissible in the light of circular dated 1.2.2012. I am of the view that the said applications were rejected without proper application of mind after taking into account the relevant circular dated 1.2.2012. It is only on account of the wrong understanding of the purport of the circular dated 1.2.2012 that the said applications came to be rejected. A perusal of the same would reveal that if the school records are produced and an application is made to correct the entry of the name in the birth register in tune with the entry in the school records, after a proper enquiry it could be granted if it is found appropriate to be corrected. There is no stipulation in the circular dated 1.2.2012 that if the correction of the name is effected once it could not be done for a second time. When the Government issued a circular and in terms of the said circular, an application for correction of the name is permissible, the respondents cannot reject an application for correction of the name assigning a non-existent reason in the relevant circular. In short, I am of the view that the applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected without a proper consideration of the application in the light of circular dated 1.2.2012. In such circumstances, the applications submitted by the petitioners viz., Ext.P6, in both the writ petitions, requires a reconsideration at the hands of the respondents. Needless to say that while considering the same, the respondents shall look into Ext.P3 (in both writ petitions) certificates. After perusing the said school records and if necessary, after conducting an enquiry, the applications shall be taken up for reconsideration and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon. This shall be done expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010