Shriya v. The Central Board Of Secondary Education And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18669 of 2017 ====================================================== Shriya, Daughter of Sushil Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Anand Pharma, Maripur, (Near Over Bridge), Post Office- Company Bagh, Police StationKaji Mohammadpur District- Muzaffarpur, through her Natural guardian and her mother, namely, Mamta, Wife of Sushil Kumar, resident of MohallaAnand Pharma, Maripur (Near Over Bridge), Post Office- Company Bagh, Police Station- Kaji Mohammadpur District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi through its Chairman.

2. The Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.

3. The Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Ambika Complex, Behind S.B.I. Colony, Sheikhpura, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Assistant Secretary (M&M) Central Board of Secondary Education, Ambika Complex, Behind S.B.I. Colony, Sheikhpura, Bailey Road, Patna.

5. The Principal, DAV Public School, Darbhanga Road, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Principal ST XAVIER'S JR/SR School, Ramna, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Shekhar Ms. Abhanjali Mr. Apurva Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-03-2018 The petitioner passed Class-10 examination with her roll no. 7129848, in the year 2013 and 10+2 examination with Roll No. 7615066, in the year 2015. She had applied for addition of surname in her certificates, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, which is the Board, which had conducted the petitioner's examinations. Her application has been rejected by the impugned order, dated 25.04.2017, on the ground of the same being time barred.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18669 of 2017(2) dt.19-03-2018 2/2 This is not in dispute that recently, the time limit for filing application for correction etc. has been extended to five years. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's claim cannot be said to be time barred, if the petitioner applies afresh for such correction, for which she had applied.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on certain orders passed by this Court dealing with the situation where the examinees need to get added their surnames in their respective certificates, which have been brought on record by way of Annexures-9 and 9/1 to the present writ application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh for the necessary addition/correction.

If such an application is filed within a period of one month from today, along with the copies of the orders passed by this Court (Annexures-9 and 9/1), the respondent no. 3 shall ensure that the same is considered and disposed of within a period of two months thereafter.

This application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Prabhakar Anand/- U √