Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14108 (RAJ)

AAYUSH CHOUDHARY SON OF OMPRAKASH CHOUDHARY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

CW/4828/2021 · 2025-07-07

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4828/2021 Aayush Choudhary Son of Omprakash Choudhary, aged about 17 Years, Resident of Sadafal, Baran, Garda, District Baran (Raj.) Through Father Omprakash Son Of Saligram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Sadafal, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Central Board of Secondary Education, Through Secretary, Delhi. 2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Kota, District Kota (Raj.) 3. Principal, Bhuvnesh Bal Vidyalaya, Kota Baran National Highway, Kota (Raj.) 4. Assistant Registrar Examination, All India Secondary School Examination, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Jain Mutha Ms. Poonam Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S.Raghav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/07/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the adopted son of Omprakash but due to inadvertent mistake, the name of his biological father has reflected in the educational documents of the petitioner. Counsel submits that an application was submitted in this regard for necessary correction before the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, ‘the Board) but the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. (2 of 2) [CW-4828/2021] Counsel submits that the matter is required to be examined by the respondent-Board in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) and Ors. reported in 2021(7) SCC 535, so appropriate direction be issued to the respondent to decide the matter afresh on a representation submitted by the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer. 3. Considering the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition stands disposed of, by issuing a direction to the Board to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (Supra), expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 4. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/68