Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39967 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6426 of 2025 Petitioner :- Neelam Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Singh,Shubham Kumar Kanojiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had appeared in the High School examination in the year 1992 and had qualified the same. The name of the petitioner was rightly recorded in the marks-sheet issued to her. However, in the certificate, there was a typographical error in the name of the father of the petitioner as depicted in the certificate. It is stated that subsequently the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and was also appointed. It is stated that the petitioner had moved an application for correction of the name of the petitioner's father, however, the same has been rejected by means of the order dated 19.01.2025 merely on account that the same has been presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation contained in Chapter III, Regulation 7 of the Regulation framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which prescribes for a limitation of three years, whereas the petitioner had moved an application after about 33 years. 3. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record, placing on record the fact that the real sister of the petitioner had also started from the same school and the name of the her father was rightly recorded in the certificate, however, there was a typographical error in recording the name of the father of the petitioner with the certificate issued to her for no fault of the petitioner. 4. Further reliance is placed upon the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board Secondary Education and others (2015) 1 All LR 61, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the provisions of Regulation 7, which prescribes for limitation. The Division Bench of this Court held that the limitation was not applied insofar as it relates to correction of name, etc and no limit would be applied. 5. Following the said judgement, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. The respondent No.2 is directed to pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioner for correction of the name of the father of the petitioner. While doing so, the petitioner would be at liberty to file the certificate of the real sister of the petitioner depicting the correct name of the father of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall pass fresh orders keeping in view the certificate of the real sister of the petitioner issued by the respondents themselves and it is specifically provided that the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 7. The petition stands disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench