Allowed

Sukriti v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/13000/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, directing the CBSE to correct her name and her father's name in CTET certificates to match her Class 10 and Class 12 certificates, despite the petitioner missing the correction window. Costs were not imposed given the petitioner's status as a student.

What did the court decide?

The CBSE is directed to reflect the petitioner's name as "Sukriti" and her father's name as "Rejender Bhatia" in CTET certificates.

Sukriti Vs Union of India and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified nanie, in the online portal, as "Sukriti Bhatia" instead of "Sukriti" and Digitally Signed • 1 By:AM UL YA

¶2

her father's name as "RajenderKumar" insteadof "RajenderBhatia".

¶3

The CBSE had provided for a window period from 6^^ September,2018 to 15^*^ September,2018, in order for candidates,who were applying for appearance in the CTET examinations, to correct personal details, in case of error.

¶4

The writ petition avers, that, owing to some issue regardingthe server of the CBSE, the attempts, of the petitioner, to effect corrections in her name, and her father's name, as entered on the portal, could not fructify.

¶5

It is further averred that, the petitioner visited the office of the CBSE, which expressed its inability to come to her aid.

¶6

It is an admitted position that'tli'e class 10^ and class 12'*^ 'Certificatesof the petitioner, issued by the CBSE itself, reflectedthe petitioner's name as "Sukriti" and her father's name as "Rajender Bhatia".

¶7

As such, the CBSE has itself acknowledged the name of the petitioner as "Sukriti" and name of her father as "Rejender Bhatia". The case is, therefore, clearly one in which, owing to inadvertencethough, perhaps, avoidable- the petitionerentered wrong details on the web portal of the CBSE while applying for the CTET examinations.

¶8

Page 2 of 4

¶9

W.P.(C) 13000/2018

¶10

On merits, therefore, there can be no opposition to the claim of the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the CBSE, candidly acknowledgesthis position, but states that the petitioner was in default in not applying for correction during the window period provided for the saidpurposei.e. 6^'' September,2018 to 15^^ September,2018.

¶12

He submits that the petitioner's submission that there had been a server problem, is apparently being raised as an afterthought, to get over the said lapse on the part of^he-petitioiier..

¶13

Be that as it may, the facts ,of this case would not warrant withholdingreliefto the petitioner'oh that^ground.

¶14

The changes soughtsbykhe pejitioner^bpingin accordance with class 10* and class 12* cerllficalesi^^f'i^s^edby the CBSE itself,the interests of justice would warrant that the request of the petitioner is allowed.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶16

The CBSE is directed to reflect the name of the petitioner as "Sukriti" and the name of her father as "Rejender Bhatia" in the certificates issued consequent to the CTET examinations to be given by the petitioner.

¶17

Page 3 of 4

¶18

W.P.(C) 13000/2018

¶19

Mr. Amit Bansal also submits that, in order to avoid such similarchallenges,in future, costs may be imposedon thepetitioner.

¶20

Given the fact that the petitioner is a student on the threshold of the examinations,I do not think any suchmeasureis called for.

¶21

C. HAICSjH^KARTtr;

¶22

DECEMBER 07, 2018 dsn

¶23

''"I-.•"
"b- Vv;r;-.u-
• •. .V- ->
. ;••• •.

¶24

W.P.(C) 13000/2018

¶25

Page 4 of 4

Sukriti v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukriti v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi Transport Corporation through Its Chairman Vs Anil Kumar

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Lekh Raj and Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ganga Saran & Ors.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ram Chander & Anr.

B. K. Tripathi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanijan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Ors.

Mgmt. of Cantonment Board Merr Vs Preetam Singh

Vikas Jain Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Cardiff Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Bharat Publuc School Vs Chairman Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors.

Inder Mohan Singh Vs DDA

Animesh Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Management Committee of Sunrise Apartments Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.