[2025:RJ-JP:46754] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16731/2025 Mahi Rathore D/o Jagdish Rathore, Aged About 20 Years, R/o 136, Ward No. 13, Main Market, Morak Ganv, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Central Board Of Secondary Education, Through Chairperson, 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) : Ms. Neetu Mathur for Mr. G.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav & Mr. Vishvas Saini, for CBSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/11/2025 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 her father’s name in the Marks Statement cum Certificate. It is submitted that name of the petitioner’s father has been mentioned as Jagdeesh Rathore instead of Jagdish Rathore. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:46754] (2 of 2) [CW-16731/2025] Secondary Education & Ors.. In this regard, he has submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments and hence, the same may be decided in their light. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to refute the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by both the sides, 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 CHARU SONI /24