Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AKHIL GOYAL versus CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Akhil Goyal v. Central Board Of Secondary Education New Delhi And Others - WRIT - C No. 17249 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6826 (29 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ No. 17249 of 2006

Akhil Goyal                                                       Petitioner

                                             Vs.

Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi through its chairman and others                                            Respondents.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

           Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

              The petitioner has filled up Examination Form for appearing in All India Secondary School Examination, 2005-06 in which his name was written as Chirag Goyal but thereafter his name was to change as Akhil Goyal for some mythological reasons. It is alleged that he has made a representation to respondent no.2  for change of name before issuance of Admit Card, which has remained unactioned till date.

Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to respondent no.2 to issue mark-sheet and certificate of All India Secondary School Examination 2006 to the petitioner in his new name "Akhil Goyal" in place of his previous name "Chirag Goyal".

            Admittedly, the petitioner has already filled up his form for appearing in All India Secondary School Examination, 2005-2006 with his name as Chirag Goyal. The representation of the petitioner is also pending.

              Respondent no.2, Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad or any other competent officer in this regard shall decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

             It is made clear that this case is not being decided on merit and the representation of the petitioner shall be decided independent of any observation of this Court.

              With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dated 29.3.2006

CPP/-  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.