Allowed

Shankey Choudhary Baliyan v. the Director Office of Ctet/Jnvst/Me Central Board of Secondary Education (Ctet)

Delhi HC3 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/3766/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order allowing a writ petition seeking correction of factual errors (name and parents' names) in a CTET certificate. Relies on *Sushama v. CBSE* to direct the CBSE to rectify genuine mistakes caused by inadvertence despite missed correction windows.

What did the court decide?

Directed the CBSE to correct the petitioner's name and his parents' names in the CTET certificate and surrender the original certificate.

Shankey Choudhary Baliyan Vs the Director Office of… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 3^rd December, 2018

¶4

W.P.(C) 3766/2018 & CM APPL. 14943/2018

¶5

SHANKEY CHOUDHARY BALIYAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Suresh Chand, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CTET/JNVST/ME CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CTET) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms.Seema Dolo, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶10

% 03.12.2018

¶11

1. The petitioner passed his 10^th Standard Examination on 26^th May, 2005, his 12^th Standard Examination in 25^th May, 2007 and graduate from the University of Delhi, in 2010. Thereafter, he completed his B.Ed Course in 2016 from the CCS University, Meerut. In July, 2016, the petitioner applied, with the Respondent-CBSE for permission to undertake the Central Teachers’ Eligibility Test (CTET), whereafter he appeared in the examination on 18^th September, 2016. In the CTET certificate issued by the CBSE on 7^th November, 2016, the name of the petitioner was shown as “Shankey”, the name of his father was shown as “Choudhary” and the name of his mother was shown as “Baliyan”.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

W.P.(C) 3766/2018

¶14

2. The case of the petitioner is that, actually, the petitioner’s name was “Shankey Choudhary Baliayan” where as the names of his father and mother are as “Sehdev Singh” and Urmila Choudhary” respectively .

¶15

3. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted an application, on 9^th November, 2018, for correction of his name, as well as the names of his father and mother, as entered in the CTET certificates issued by the CBSE. No response being forthcoming from the CBSE to the said application, the petitioner has moved this Court.

¶16

4. The counter affidavit of the CBSE, even while admitting, fairly, that it was a “genuine mistake” on its part, seeks, nevertheless, to contest, the case of the petitioner by relying on Clause 15.1 in Appendix-IV of the Bulletin of Information issued for the CTET, which stipulates that requests to change/correction in any particulars of the conformation page would not be entertained any circumstances except during the window period provided for applying for such corrections. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not applied for the said correction during the said period, the CBSE seeks to submit that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶17

5. The issue is not res integra , as a similar dispute stands adjudicated, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19^th July, 2018, in W P (C) 4516/2018 (Sushama v. CBSE) , Paras 9 to 15 of the said decision read thus :

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

W.P.(C) 3766/2018

¶20

“9. However, this Court’s attention has been invited to the Clause 15.1 of the Appendix IV of the Bulletin of Information issued for the CTET, 2016, wherein it is provided that request for change/correction in any particulars, in the confirmation page, shall not be entertained under any circumstances except, during the period permitted to make online correction. The Board will further, not be responsible for any consequences arising out of non-acceptance of any correction/ addition/ deletion in any particular, once filled in the application form, whatsoever the reasons may be.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the CBSE further urges that, since the change as prayed for, by the petitioner, was not sought during the time stipulated therein, the same cannot now be done.

¶22

In this behalf, it is observed that the correction of genuine mistakes, which are occasioned by inadvertence on the part of the parties cannot disentitle the affected party from seeking a correction if they are disadvantaged thereby.

¶23

In this behalf, it is observed that the petitioner does not seek any addition, alteration, deletion or substitution of any particulars in the CTET Eligibility Certificate, contrary to the certificates issued hitherto by other statutory bodies but seeks correction in the CTET Eligibility Certificate, only to the extent that they are in consonance with the details already specified in the record of the certificates previously issued.

¶24

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed.

¶25

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the CBSE to make the required correction and reflect the petitioner’s father’s name, namely, Sh. Ajit Singh in the column of father’s name and her mother’s name, namely, Smt. Suman Devi in the column of mother’s name, respectively, in the CTET Eligibility Certificate.

¶26

The petitioner is, however, directed to surrender the original CTET Eligibility Certificate to the CBSE to enable the latter to carry out the above corrections.”

¶27

6. Respectfully following the above precedent, this present writ

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

W.P.(C) 3766/2018

¶30

petition is allowed. The CBSE is directed to carry out the requisite corrections in the CTET certificate by reflecting the petitioner’s name as “Shankey Choudhary Baliayan” as well as the names of his father and her mother, shown as “Sehdev Singh” and Urmila Choudhary”.

¶31

7. The petitioner is directed to surrender the original Central Teachers’ Eligibility Test (CTET) certificate to the CBSE in order to enable it to carry out the requisite corrections.

¶32

8. The writ petition is allowed with no orders as to costs.

¶33

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

¶34

DECEMBER 03, 2018
bh

¶35

Page 4 of 4

¶36

W.P.(C) 3766/2018

Shankey Choudhary Baliyan v. the Director Office of Ctet/Jnvst/Me Central Board of Secondary Education (Ctet)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankey Choudhary Baliyan v. the Director Office of Ctet/Jnvst/Me Central Board of Secondary Education (Ctet)

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

Minor X (through Guardian Raj Kumar) Vs State (Nct) of Delhi and Ors.

Management Committee Masjid Jangalwali & Ors. Vs Delhi Wakf Board & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jagdis Saran Vs Union of India & Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Beena Devi and Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Kishore and Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Palni and Ors.

The Director General Cpwd Vs Devi

Rajesh Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Anil Sethi Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Col (Retd) K.S. Gahlawat Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sachin Tanwar Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Riya Intetrnational College Vs Rehabilitaion Council of India

Miss Diya Madan through Father Paras Madan and Ors. Vs Maxfort School Pitampura and Anr.