Court directed petitioner to file a representation with the respondents for correction of father's name in marks statement. Respondents must decide via speaking order within two months.
Petitioner directed to file representation; respondents to decide within two months via speaking order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:46947]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17823/2025
Ekansh Sharma S/o Mukesh Sharma, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Rambhawan, Shiv Mandir, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore with Mr. Rohit Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
20/11/2025
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has sought a direction to the Central Board Of Secondary Education to change his father’s name in the Marks Statement cum Certificate. It is submitted that name of the petitioner’s father has been mentioned as Mukesh Kumar Sharma instead of Mukesh Sharma.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Guardian/Father Hari Singh Vs. C.B.S.E. & Ors. reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535 and the judgment of this Court in SBCWP No.9354/2019 titled as Abhinavi Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. . In this regard, he has submitted
[2025:RJ-JP:46947]
[CW-17823/2025]
(2 of 2)
that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments and hence, the same may be decided in their light.
This Court has considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, scanned the record of the case and perused the judgment cited at Bar.
It is observed that in the case of Abhinavi (supra) , it was held that:-
“In the instant petition also, the petitioners are directed to submit their representation, which can be considered by the respondents in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court judgment of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (supra) or in the light of standard of procedure, if formulated, within a period of two months.”
In light of the said judgment, the petitioner is directed to file a representation along with the present set of writ petitions before the respondents through concerned school, who shall then decide the matter in light of the judgment of Jigya Yadav (supra) and Abhinavi (supra) .
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. The respondents are further directed to decide the said representation by speaking order within a period of two months from the date of filing of the same.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the Central Board of Secondary Education to change his father's name in the Marks Statement cum Certificate.
Whether the petitioner can be directed to file a representation for deciding the merit of the application regarding the name change.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Guardian/Father Hari Singh Vs. C.B.S.E. & Ors.Relied on¶15
2021 7 SCC 535 · Who else cites this
Abhinavi Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.Relied on¶15
SBCWP No.9354/2019 Abhinavi Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ekansh Sharma
Central Board Of Secondary Education
Anil Kumar Upman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
