Chattisgarh High Court
Minakshee Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 November, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 4566 of 2021
• Minakshee Pandey W/o Dinesh Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Mig-2,
1016, Industrial Estate Near Jamul, Police Station- Bhilai, District- Durg,
Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Education
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. District Education Officer District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District :
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3. Board Of Secondary Education Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate.
For the respondents/State : Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Dy. Govt.
Adv.
For respondent No.3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order on Board
22.11.2021
Heard on petition.
1. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the actual date of birth of
the petitioner is 8.4.1979(Annexure-P/1). The birth certificate issued by
the authority, the Primary School Marksheet(Annexure-P/2), Mark-sheet
of Middle School(Annexure-P/3), Transfer Certificate(Annexure-P/5) and
various other documents are present, in which, the date of birth of the
petitioner is mentioned is 8.4.1979. The mark-sheet issued to the
petitioner for High School Examination (Annexure-P/4) mentions her
date of birth is 8.4.1975, which is erroneous. The petitioner made
representation to respondent No.3 praying for correction of her date of
birth in the mark-sheet of High School Examination, but the same is
pending and has not been decided by the respondent No.3 to consider
on the representation made by the petitioner.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Chhattisgarh High
Court in the case of Sudhir Ram Bhagat Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik
Shiksha Mandal, Raipur and another in (2009) 3 C.G.L.J. 103
2. Learned State counsel representing the respondents No.1 & 2 opposes
the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the representation
made by the petitioner is already delayed and on the ground of delay,
this petition cannot be entertained, therefore, it is prayed that petition be
dismissed.
4. Considered on the submissions.
5. Perused the documents filed along with the petition, the petition is
disposed off at motion stage. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider
on the representation made by the petitioner at the earliest and take
decision on the same without being influenced by any of the
observations made by this Court in this order. It is further directed that
the decision be taken by the respondent No.3 preferably within a period
of two months.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nisha
