Disposed

Ananda Kumar Valpula v. The Central Board of Secondary Education

Telangana HC21 Jan 2015WP/14663/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the respondent for name correction in exam marks after a relevant rule was deleted by notification. The respondent must decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to submit a fresh application within one month; respondent directed to pass orders within three months.

Ananda Kumar Valpula Vs The Central Board of… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14663 of 2008

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent to change the name of the petitioner in the Marks Statement of All India Secondary School Examination-2005 bearing No.107531 dated 24.05.2005 as ‘Ananda Kumar Velpula’ instead of ‘Shobabu Velpula’ in view of the Andhra Pradesh Government Gazette Publication dated 07.09.2006.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶6

3. The petitioner made a representation to the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Banavasi, Kurnool District, for change of his name in the Marks Statement and the Pass Certificate. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Banavasi, Kurnool District, forwarded the same to the Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Chennai in Reference No.1-16/JNVK/2006-07/592 dated 16.12.2006. The respondent herein, by way of proceedings bearing No.CBSE.ROC.Corrn.2007.CHGNAME.05.245 dated 07.02.2007, rejected the said request made by the petitioner herein saying that the same would not be permissible in view of Rule No.69(1)(iv) of the examination byelaws, 1995 of the Board.

¶7

4. When the matter is called, a Notification bearing

¶8

No.COORD/SO-K/F-08/2007, dated 16.10.2007, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, is placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. By virtue of the said notification, the respondent deleted Role No.69.1(iv). On noticing the same, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to permit the petitioner herein to make an application for redressal of his grievance in terms of the said notification. This Court considers the said request as reasonable and the same is accepted.

¶9

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner herein to submit a fresh application enclosing all the relevant documents to the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

6. If such an application is made, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months thereafter as per law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶12

21^st January, 2015 sj

Ananda Kumar Valpula v. The Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Kumar Valpula v. The Central Board of Secondary Education

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

Md.Suneer, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Genco Mala Employees Welfare Association, Vs The Director(Hr)

Annavaram Satyanarayana, Vs Sub-Inspector of Police

M/s. G.K. Rao and Co., Sri Cini corporation, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Muntha Narasimha Vs The Commissioner

Pilla Dasaradhi Narasimha Rao Vs The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology