[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 1. Central Board Of Secondary Education, Through Chairper- son, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. 2. Central Board Of Secondary Education, Through Regional Office, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer Through Authorized Officer. ----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] (2 of 2) [CW-17823/2025] 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