Disposed

Rajan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2019WRIC/35053/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a student seeking correction of his name in an examination mark-sheet. The petitioner alleged inaction by the Regional Office for nearly two years. The court directed the Respondent to decide the application within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Secretary to decide the application for name correction within two months.

Rajan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35053 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajan Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Order on Order Sheet.

¶6

Petitioner is permitted to implead Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad U.P. Regional Office Prayagraj as respondent no.4 in the array of the parties during the course of the day.

¶7

Order on Writ Petition.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

The petitioner has passed intermediate examination in the year 2017. In the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner the name of petitioner is recorded as 'Ranjan Tripathi' whereas according to the petitioner his correct name is 'Rajan Tripathi'.

¶10

The petitioner has submitted an application to the respondent no.4 Additional Secretary, Regional Office Prayagraj, copy of which is annexed as annexure 2 to the writ petition, for correction of his name in the mark-sheet. The said application has been received in the office of Additional Secretary on 26.12.2017.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that almost about two years have passed but the Additional Secretary has not yet taken any decision on the aforesaid application of the petitioner.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel contends that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and an appropriate direction may be issued to the Additional Secretary to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merit of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.4 Additional Secretary, Regional Office, Prayagraj to decide the application of the petitioner (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) with regard to correction of his name in

¶14

the mark-sheet within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Sattyarth

Rajan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Kumar Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Pinki Verma and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

C/M Nath Junior High School and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Parasuram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km. Kumkum Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Monisha Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others