Delhi High Court
Sushama vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 19 July, 2018
#42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.07.2018
W.P.(C) 4516/2018
SUSHAMA .... Petitioner
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION .... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.V. Khatri, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.17346/2018
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4516/2018
1. The present petition instituted on behalf of the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent to make necessary correction in Central
Teacher Eligibility Test (for short 'CTET') Eligibility Certificate vide
reference No.10876 dated 07.11.2016, issued in the name of
petitioner, to the effect that her father's name, namely, Sh. Ajit Singh
may be mentioned in the column of father's name and her mother's
name, namely, Smt. Suman Devi be mentioned in the column of
mother's name, instead of vice-versa, as mentioned in the said
certificate.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a duly qualified diploma
holder in education from Board of School Education, Haryana.
3. It is further an admitted position that, on the strength of the aforesaid
qualifications, the petitioner appeared in CTET examination held on
18.09.2016 and was declared qualified in the said examination on
07.11.2016.
4. At the time of filling the form for the post of Primary Teacher on
11.08.2017 in the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, it came
to the notice of the petitioner that the certificate issued by the Central
Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as 'CBSE'),
had wrongly mentioned her father's name, namely, Sh. Ajit Singh
against the column of her mother's name i.e. Smt. Suman Devi and
vice-versa.
5. Immediately upon discovery of the above-mentioned mistake, the
petitioner, inter alia, applied to the CBSE to correct the CTET
certificate and reflect the name of her father in the requisite column as
Sh. Ajit Singh and that of her mother in the column provided for the
said purpose as Smt. Suman Devi, respectively.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that despite having requested for such a
change, the same has not been acceded to and that the mistake that
existed in the original certificate persists even in the duplicate
certificate, issued in this behalf.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would state that,
the mistake which may have been occasioned by an inadvertent error
on their part, or on the part of the respondent nevertheless, is a
genuine one and the certificates as annexed to the present petition,
issued by other statutory authorities would demonstrate that the name
of the petitioner's father as Sh. Ajit Singh and that of her mother's as
Smt. Suman Devi.
8. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBSE
does not refute the assertion that, the mistake is a genuine one and
may have been occasioned by an inadvertent error on the part of the
petitioner.
9. However, this Court's attention has been invited to the Clause 15.1 of
the Appendix IV of the Bulletin of Information issued for the CTET,
2016, wherein it is provided that request for change/correction in any
particulars, in the confirmation page, shall not be entertained under
any circumstances except, during the period permitted to make online
correction. The Board will further, not be responsible for any
consequences arising out of non-acceptance of any
correction/addition/deletion in any particular, once filled in the
application form, whatsoever the reasons may be.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the CBSE further urges that, since the
change as prayed for, by the petitioner, was not sought during the time
stipulated therein, the same cannot now be done.
11. In this behalf, it is observed that the correction of genuine mistakes,
which are occasioned by inadvertence on the part of the parties cannot
disentitle the affected party from seeking a correction if they are
disadvantaged thereby.
12.In this behalf, it is observed that the petitioner does not seek any
addition, alteration, deletion or substitution of any particulars in the
CTET Eligibility Certificate, contrary to the certificates issued hitherto
by other statutory bodies but seeks correction in the CTET Eligibility
Certificate, only to the extent that they are in consonance with the
details already specified in the record of the certificates previously
issued.
13.In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed.
14.The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the CBSE to
make the required correction and reflect the petitioner's father's name,
namely, Sh. Ajit Singh in the column of father's name and her
mother's name, namely, Smt. Suman Devi in the column of mother's
name, respectively, in the CTET Eligibility Certificate.
15. The petitioner is, however, directed to surrender the original CTET
Eligibility Certificate to the CBSE to enable the latter to carry out the
above corrections.
16. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
JULY 19, 2018
as
