Student Cannot Suffer On Account Of Technical Mistake: Madhya Pradesh HC Directs Nursing Council To Correct Photo Error In Marksheets
The Court said that in the absence of any enquiry, the State could not have rejected the petitioner's request merely on the ground that the photograph appearing in the online records was different.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order rejecting a student's request to correct her photograph on her General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) marksheets, holding that a candidate cannot be made to suffer due to a technical error committed during the online registration process.
The Bench observed that in the absence of any enquiry or allegation regarding fraud or impersonation, refusing rectification despite valid institutional records was arbitrary and legally unsustainable, subsequently directing the authorities to issue corrected marksheets within six weeks.
The Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held, "In the absence of any enquiry or finding regarding impersonation or fraud, the respondents could not have rejected the petitioner's request merely on the ground that the photograph appearing in the online records was different. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of a clerical or technical mistake committed during the online registration process, particularly when the original institutional records consistently establish her identity. The action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's request is, therefore, arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law."
Advocate Jitendra Kumar Sharma appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts
A writ petition was filed assailing the Order passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh whereby the petitioner's request for correction of her photograph in the GNM marksheets and other academic records has been rejected. It was the case of the petitioner that she was admitted to the GNM Course for the academic session 2019-20 in the Respondent/College, recognized by the Madhya Pradesh State Nurses Registration Council.
At the time of admission, the petitioner submitted all the required documents, including the photographs of the petitioner which were duly affixed on the admission form and the admission register maintained by the institution. After the online registration, when the First Year admit card was issued by Respondent No.1, the petitioner came to know that a photograph of some other lady was inadvertently uploaded in place of the petitioner's photograph.
The petitioner immediately brought the discrepancy to the notice of Respondent No.2 who assured her that the same would be rectified by Respondent No.1 and issued communications to Respondent No.1 to correct the photograph.
The petitioner immediately reported the discrepancy to Respondent No. 2, who assured her of rectification through Respondent No. 1 and issued communications requesting Respondent No. 1 to correct the photograph.
Despite the persistent error on admit cards and marksheets across all three years of the course, Respondent No. 1 permitted the petitioner to appear in all examinations, declared her successful, and issued her marksheets carrying the wrong photograph.
After her representations and an RTI application failed to yield results, the petitioner approached the High Court in another writ, which was disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide her fresh representation.
Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for photographic correction, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner submitted that she has never committed any fraud, misrepresentation, or impersonation. It was contended that, from the very inception, the petitioner had submitted her correct photograph at the time of admission, which is duly reflected in the admission records maintained by respondent No. 2. She said that despite having complete knowledge of the mistake, Respondent No. 1 failed to rectify the same.
Per contra, the Respondent State submitted that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged discrepancy in the photograph at least from the year 2020, when the First Year admit card was issued, yet she approached this Court only after an inordinate delay of about five years. It was argued that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches.
It was also submitted that marksheets, admit cards, and registration records were generated strictly on the basis of data uploaded by the nursing college on the MP Online portal, and Respondent No. 1 Council merely relied upon such data without committing any error itself.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that the discrepancy appeared to have occurred during the process of online uploading through the M.P. Online Portal.
The Court observed that despite having knowledge of the discrepancy, the Respondents permitted the petitioner to appear in all the examinations, accepted her attendance, evaluated her answer books, declared her successful, and issued the marksheets.
The Court held, "Despite having knowledge of the discrepancy, the respondents permitted the petitioner to appear in all the examinations, accepted her attendance, evaluated her answer books, declared her successful, and issued the marksheets. The respondents have not alleged anywhere that the petitioner had indulged in impersonation, fraud, or any malpractice. If the respondents were of the opinion that there was any case of impersonation, it was incumbent upon them to hold a proper enquiry before rejecting the petitioner's request. Admittedly, no such enquiry has ever been conducted."
The Court concluded that the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's request is, therefore, arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Respondents to verify the Petitioner's identity from the original admission records.
It was ordered that the Respondents shall correct the petitioner's photograph in all official records and thereafter issue fresh corrected marksheets and other consequential documents in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks.
Cause Title: Smt Roopa Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:MPHC-GWL:21708]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Jitendra Kumar Sharma and Advocate Krati Sachdev