Allowed

Lahari Vennam v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Sept 2021WP/18977/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition challenging an order where the Central Board of Secondary Education refused name corrections for parents in the petitioner's SSC Certificate. The court cited Supreme Court guidelines from Jigya Yadav, finding the Board's requirement to apply only after result publication unreasonable. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.01.2020 set aside; matter remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh consideration in light of Supreme Court guidelines in Jigya Yadav within eight weeks.

Lahari Vennam Vs Union of India — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.18977 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for 1^st respondent, Smt. A.Chaya Devi, learned counsel representing 2^nd respondent and Smt. V.Hima Bindu, learned counsel for 3^rd respondent.

¶4

Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order bearing No.CBSE/RO(M)/CORPN/2019/190498, dated 23.01.2020 issued by the Regional Officer of Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Chennai2^nd respondent herein. By virtue of the said order, 2^nd respondent herein turned down request of the petitioner herein for certain corrections sought as regards names of the parents of the petitioner in the S.S.C. Certificate.

¶5

During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E. & others in Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011 and batch, vide Judgment dated 03.06.2021, laid down certain guidelines to be followed by the respondents while dealing with the requests of the present nature. Copy of the said judgment is placed on record. In the said judgment, the

¶6

¶7

Hon’ble Apex Court extensively dealt with the parameters which the respondents are required to adhere to, while considering the requests of the subject nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically ruled that C.B.S.E. cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results, and further held that such a condition is unreasonable and excessive. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos. 169 to 172 in the said judgment, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to 2^nd respondent herein for consideration of the issue afresh and passing appropriate orders by taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovereferred judgment.

¶8

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and order bearing No.CBSE/RO(M)/CORPN/2019/ 190498, dated 23.01.2020 issued by the Regional Officer of Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Chennai-2^nd respondent herein is set aside and the matter is remanded to 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration of the matter and for passing appropriate orders, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the Judgment dated 03.06.2021 in the case of

¶9

¶10

Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E. & others in Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011 and batch. It is open for the petitioner herein to place before 2^nd respondent, additional material, if any, and a copy of the Judgment dated 03.06.2021 in the case of Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E. & others in Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011 and batch, for consideration of 2^nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and it is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

No costs as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶12

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶14

02.09.2021 DRK

¶15

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.18977 OF 2020

¶18

02.09.2021

¶19

DRK

Lahari Vennam v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lahari Vennam v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.

Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.

Shaik Vazeer Vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited

P.S.R.Anjaneyulu Vs Rastriyaispath Nigam Limited

Mytrah Vayu (Krishna) Private Limited Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Tirumalapudi Naga Mani Vs Pola Bhaskar