Full Judgment Text
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9585/2015
SHREYA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neha Gutpa, Advocate
versus
C B S E & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr. Akhil
Kulshrestha and Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocates for
Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
% 09.10.2015
1. Issue notice to the respondents
2. Ms. Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
3. Ms. Singh says that she does not wish to file a counter affidavit
and will argue the matter based on the material available on the
record.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.1/CBSE
has not carried out correction in her class X certificate in so far as
there is an error in the manner in which the name of her father is
reflected therein.
4.1 According to the petitioner, her father’s name reads as Mr.
‘Rupesh Kumar Gupta’ whereas the class X certificate issued to her
records her father’s name as : ‘Rupesh Gupta’. As per the assertion
WP(C) 9585/2015 Page 1 of 2
made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner took admission
with respondent no.2 school on 27.03.2009 and sat for Class X
examination in 2015. The petitioner passed the class X examination
in March 2015.
4.2 It is the petitioner’s assertion that the respondent no.2 school
upon her representation forwarded her request to CBSE on
22.09.2015.
4.3 It is the petitioner’s case that she is covered both under the
amended and unamended bye-laws.
5. Ms. Singh says that as per the instructions received by her, the
CBSE is not able to locate the request of respondent no.2 school, in
their record. In any case, Ms. Singh says that the petitioner could
follow up with respondent no.2 school in respect of the same.
6. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, with a
direction to respondent no.1/CBSE to treat the writ petition as a
representation and pass suitable orders qua the grievance articulated
in the petition.
6.1 Needless to say, the needful will be done within three weeks.
While passing the order, respondent no.1/CBSE will also have regard
to the judgment of this court dated 17.09.2015, passed in WP(C)
5323/2015, titled : Kalpana Thakur and Anr. Vs. Central Board of
Secondary Education and Anr.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 09, 2015
yg
WP(C) 9585/2015 Page 2 of 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9585/2015
SHREYA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neha Gutpa, Advocate
versus
C B S E & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr. Akhil
Kulshrestha and Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocates for
Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
% 09.10.2015
1. Issue notice to the respondents
2. Ms. Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
3. Ms. Singh says that she does not wish to file a counter affidavit
and will argue the matter based on the material available on the
record.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.1/CBSE
has not carried out correction in her class X certificate in so far as
there is an error in the manner in which the name of her father is
reflected therein.
4.1 According to the petitioner, her father’s name reads as Mr.
‘Rupesh Kumar Gupta’ whereas the class X certificate issued to her
records her father’s name as : ‘Rupesh Gupta’. As per the assertion
WP(C) 9585/2015 Page 1 of 2
made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner took admission
with respondent no.2 school on 27.03.2009 and sat for Class X
examination in 2015. The petitioner passed the class X examination
in March 2015.
4.2 It is the petitioner’s assertion that the respondent no.2 school
upon her representation forwarded her request to CBSE on
22.09.2015.
4.3 It is the petitioner’s case that she is covered both under the
amended and unamended bye-laws.
5. Ms. Singh says that as per the instructions received by her, the
CBSE is not able to locate the request of respondent no.2 school, in
their record. In any case, Ms. Singh says that the petitioner could
follow up with respondent no.2 school in respect of the same.
6. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, with a
direction to respondent no.1/CBSE to treat the writ petition as a
representation and pass suitable orders qua the grievance articulated
in the petition.
6.1 Needless to say, the needful will be done within three weeks.
While passing the order, respondent no.1/CBSE will also have regard
to the judgment of this court dated 17.09.2015, passed in WP(C)
5323/2015, titled : Kalpana Thakur and Anr. Vs. Central Board of
Secondary Education and Anr.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 09, 2015
yg
WP(C) 9585/2015 Page 2 of 2