Mother or legal guardian’s name will do too
HC observes on discriminatory practices in filling up SSC, HSC forms
The High Court in the full text of a verdict has directed the government to allow the SSC and HSC candidates to mention the names of their fathers or mothers or legal guardians while filling in student information form (SIF) for examinations.
"The respondents (officials concerned of the government) are directed to amend the student identification form and enable the candidates appearing in SSC/HSC examinations to include by way of identification information regarding either the father's/mother's or the name of their lawful guardians," the HC bench of Justice Naima Haider and Justice Md Khairul Alam said in the 14-page full text of verdict which was released recently.
The bench delivered the landmark verdict on January 24 this year following a 14-year-old writ petition, removing a gender discriminatory practice that has been a hurdle for many in pursuing education.
Using the father's name in the form was mandatory when the writ petition was filed in 2009.
On that day (January 24), the HC declared illegal and unconstitutional the refusal to provide admit cards to SSC and HSC candidates who have not used their fathers' names in the SIF.
In the full text of the verdict, the HC observed that the right to equality and non-discrimination under article 28(4) of the constitution of the children, who couldn't take part in their SSC and HSC examination over the issue, had been violated.
"Despite there being no specific rules or regulations regarding the use of either of the parent's names in the application form as confirmed by five boards of education, we note that the continued mandatory requirement of providing names of both the parents father and mother for successful completion of the SSC and HSC registration forms and issuance of admit cards in violation of rights to non-discrimination and thereby access to education which are the basic necessities of life of candidates without identified parents as guaranteed under articles 28, 31 read with 32 and 15(a)," the court observed.