Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Kumar Pandey vs Kendriya Madymik Shiksha Board Thr. on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30700
1 WP-8613-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8613 of 2015
SACHIN KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
KENDRIYA MADYMIK SHIKSHA BOARD THR. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenges the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1
whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking correction of the
name of his father in the Class 12th marksheet has been rejected.
2.Though none appears for the petitioner, however, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 fairly points out to this Court that
identical matters have been disposed of in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) [Through Guardian/Father
Hari Singh] Vs. CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) & others
passed in Civil Appeal No.3905/2011. He further points out that a similar
order has been passed in W.P. No.8925/2024 dated 29.08.2025.
3. In view of the above consideration, the instant writ petition is
disposed of in the following manner:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30700
2 WP-8613-2015
"An identical writ petition, bearing W.P. No.14627/2023 (Smt. Riya
Maloo Vs. Central Board of Secretary Education Regional Office and
Another), has been disposed off by this Court vide order dated
16.10.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if a similar
order is passed in the case of petitioner.
4. In the case of Smt. Riya Maloo (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court
has directed as under:-
" Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
order dated 29.03.2022 passed in writ petition No. 14891/2021
(B.R. Keshav Kumar Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education
and others) , which is as follows:-
"Petitioner has filed this writ petition making a prayer to direct
respondents to change the name of petitioner from 'B.R. Keshav
Kumar' to 'Keshav Kumar' in mark-sheet of Class-X and prayer is
also made to quash order dated 05.07.2021.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that Apex
Court in case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) [Through Guardian/Father
Hari Singh] Vs. CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) &
Others passed in Civil Appeal No.3905/2011 has issued directions
how application for correction of names in mark-sheet is to be
considered. This case may also be disposed off in light of said
order. Counsel for respondents relied on paragraphs No.170, 171
and 172 of the order dated 03.06.2021.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
Considering the direction issued by the Apex Court, writ petition
is disposed off directing respondents/concerned authority to
consider and decide fresh application of petitioner which will be
filed by the petitioner before respondents within seven days in
accordance with the order passed by Apex Court in aforesaid civil
appeal.
With aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off. "
4. In view of the above, the directions issued by this Court in the case
Smt. Riya Maloo (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present
case. Accordingly, the petitioner shall submit a copy of the order passed in
the instant writ petition today, alongwith the memo of writ petition, and all
annexures, accompanied by a fresh representation /application addressed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30700
3 WP-8613-2015
the respondents concerned, within a period of 10 days from today. Upon
receipt of the same, the respondents concerned are directed to consider and
decide the same in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (supra) , as referred to
above, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days
thereafter.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the claim of the petitioner.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
