Disposed

Kmkashish Maurya v. Assistant Secretary Mm and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIC/17566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of her mother's name in CBSE certificates. Alleging school non-response despite registered post attempts, court directed petitioner to approach school and respondents 2 and 3. If they fail to transmit documents to respondent 1 within one month, respondent 1 will intervene.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed time to represent; directed to approach respondents 2 and 3; if they fail to transmit documents to respondent 1 within one month, respondent 1 to act within two months. Writ petitio

Kmkashish Maurya vs Assistant Secretary Mm and 2… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114067

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17566 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kmkashish Maurya Respondent :- Assistant Secretary Mm And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Hridai Narain Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri H.N. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the C.B.S.E. Board were

¶8

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶9

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she, Km. Kashish Maurya is the daughter of Santosh Kumar Maurya and she had passed her Secondary School Examination in the year 2020 from 71106 Maa Tripur Sundari Public School, Lalapur, District Mirzapur-second respondent and marksheet was issued in the year 2020. The petitioner further claims to have cleared the Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2022 from 70081 Prayagraj Public School, Chakmada, Handia, Prayagraj/Allahabad-third respondent.

¶10

In para 8 it has been asserted that both the said institutions are affiliated to C.B.S.E., however, the name of the petitioner's mother is actually Smt. Shiv Kumari wife of Santosh Kumar Maurya, however, in the statement-cum-certificate issued by C.B.S.E. it has been reflected as Suman Maurya.

¶11

The writ petitioner relies upon the Adhar Card and other documents to substantiate his claims. It is apparent from the record that the writ petitioner had earlier preferred Writ-C No.15762 of 2023, Km. Kashish Maurya vs. Assistant Secretary and 2 others in which on 17.5.2023 the following order was passed:-

¶12

"Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hridai Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The prayer in the writ petition for a direction upon the respondent-Board to

¶13

allow the application of the petitioner for correction of her mother's name in the High School certificate issued by the Board. Shri Hridai Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Board submits that the petitioner has not submitted the application through her school along with all relevant and attested copies of the supporting documents. In this wake, the application cannot be considered. Faced with this, Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer made in the writ petition at this stage. He recasts the relief sought. Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the school has declined to forward the application of the petitioner alongwith the attested copies of the documents to the respondent-Board. Interest of justice will be served by directing the respondent No.2-Principal of the School to forthwith forward the application of the petitioner for change of her mother's name as recorded in the high school certificate/Class-10 alongwith all relevant and attested documents and records maintained by the school to the competent authority or the Board within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order alongwith a fresh copy of the application.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of."

¶15

According to the writ petitioner he had approached the institution in question for forwarding the entire documents before the first respondent for the purposes of rectification, however, the same has not been done particularly when the institution in question is not receiving the same, thus, according to the writ petitioner he had preferred a representation on 11.1.2024 annexure-6 of the writ petition.

¶16

Prayer in the present writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to correct the name of the mother of the writ petitioner.

¶17

This Court entertained the writ petition on 22.5.2024 while passing the following order:-

¶18

"1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after arguing at some length prays for a weeks' time for filing supplementary affidavit. 2. Time prayed for is granted. 3. Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 is present. 4. List this matter on 04.07.2024, as fresh."

¶19

Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed after giving an advance copy to the counsel for the respondents, according to which it has been asserted that the postal receipt/registered receipt is missing.

¶20

Sri H.N. Pandey as well as learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondents submit that the C.B.S.E. does not

¶21

possess any independent machinery or mechanism to verify a particular document as at the first instance the necessary exercise is to be done at the level of the institution whereat the student is studying. According to him since in the earlier spell of litigation the writ petitioner was required to approach the institution but the writ petitioner without approaching and getting the papers transmitted has filed the present writ petition, thus the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶23

Though in the earlier petition there was a direction to approach the institution but as per the allegations set out in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit it is alleged that the writ petitioner had approached the institution but the institution did not receive the request letter, the same was sent through registered post, postal endorsement is missing, thus the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶24

Looking into the facts and the allegations made by the writ petitioner that the institution in question is not responding and also not receiving the documents and request letter, thus, in the peculiar facts and the circumstances, it is provided that the writ petitioner may represent her cause within a period of 15 days from today before the respondents no. 2 and 3 on one hand and simultaneously before the respondent no.1. In case the respondents no. 2 and 3 do not respond and transmit the documents to the respondent no.1 within a period of one month then the first respondent shall make necessary communication and do the needful done if so required as per the bye laws. in that regard within a further period of two month.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶26

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 piyush

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kmkashish Maurya v. Assistant Secretary Mm and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kmkashish Maurya v. Assistant Secretary Mm 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Another

Achchhe Lal and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Azamgarh and 9 Others

Renu vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Rajkumar Singh Tomar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod and 4 Others vs State of Up and 13 Others