Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12115 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1932 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kumari Dipti Verma (Minor) Thru. Father, Narsingh Verma Respondent :- Union Of India, Ministry Of Education, Deptt. Of School Education And Literacy Thru. Secy. And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashwani Kumar Singh,Devendra Mohan Shukla,Shashank Bhasin Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for oppostie party no.1 and Mr. Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 & 3. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no. 4 stands dispensed with. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for change of subject pertaining to petitioner from Mathematics Standard to Mathematics Basic in ongoing Secondary Examination-2025. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that while submitting details of petitioner for appearance in Secondary Examination- 2025, petitioner had opted for Mathematics Basic but school concerned while uploading details has incorrectly indicated the subject as Mathematics Standard instead of Mathematics Basic which was not opted by petitioner during her academic session. It is, therefore, submitted that petitioner once receiving her admit card came to know about mistake and sought change of subject which has not been considered by opposite parties till date. He places reliance on judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Charu Kain versus High Court of Delhi, Writ Petition (C) No. 9230 of 2022. 4. Mr. Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for Central Board of Secondary Examination on the basis of instructions, however, has produced copies of the application form submitted by petitioner containing signatures of her father and mother apart from that of petitioner herself in which Mathematics Standard subject has been indicated. The admit card of petitioner has also been produced indicating the same. 5. It is submitted that application form of petitioner clearly indicated her to have opted for Mathematics Standard subject instead of Mathematics Basic and since the exams have already commenced, there is no provision for change of subject in the middle of examinations. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the application form produced by learned counsel for answering opposite parties, it is evident that while filling of application form, subject of Mathematics Standard has clearly been opted for. The application form also indicates the signatures of petitioner alongwith that both parents. The admit card issued subsequently also contains signatures of petitioner. All the three documents also indicate signatures of the Principal of school concerned. 7. In such circumstances, it is evident that petitioner herself had applied for Mathematics Standard subject instead of Mathematics Basic. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Charu Kain (supra). 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment is clearly inapplicable on the very facts since aforesaid judgment was rendered in the facts that petitioner therein was posted as Additional Civil Judge Junior Division in the U.P. Judicial Services and had appeared for the Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Examination-2022 as General Category candidate but sought a correction to be considered as a Reserved Category candidate. The judgment also indicates that said examinations are conducted in three stages and petitioner therein had appeared as General Category but sought the change to make the cut-off marks. The judgment places reliance on another Division Bench judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Kavita Chaudhary versus Registrar (Examination) reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3612 to hold that mistakes which do not prejudice any other person should be permitted to be rectified. 10. In the present case, it is not denied that the examinations are one time only without any three stages as was in said case cited by learned counsel for petitioner. It is also evident that present examinations have already commenced and there is no provision for such changes to be made once exams have started. 11. It being evident that petitioner has deliberately opted for subject of Mathematics Standard and there being no provision at this stage of the examinations for any correction to be made, this Court is unable to follow the judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioner. 12. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, there does not appear to be any occasion to interfere with the Hon'ble process and to grant relief as sought. 13. The petition being devoid of merit is thus dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench