Full Text
Dateofdecision: /' December, 2018
SIJKRITI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit R^-na, Ad\'.
Through: Mr. Chiranjeev Kurnar, Adv. . with Mr. Mukesh Sadhdeva, , Adv. for.R-l
• Arunirna Dwivedi, Adv.
., >AHtlVM3. preeti : Mr, Suinit Bansal, Adv. for
..R-aVCBSE GORAMr'--- .;::a J UD G iVrE'NTiORAij u . 1. The petitioner applied, tiirdiigh the online portal of the Central
Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as ''the
CBSE"), for appearance in die Central. 3^:acher Eligibility Test
(CTE'V): exaraiiiariofls-. cdiidycted-.on- August, 2018.- The requisite fees were also paid.
JUDGMENT
2. The petitioner submits that she had, inadvertently, entered her nanie, in the online portal, as "Sukriti Bhatia" instead of "Sukriti" and • 1 W.P.(C) 13000/20iV "" "" " ^affelof[4] 2018:DHC:8977 her father's name as "Rajender Kumar" instead of "RajenderBhatia".
3. The CBSE had provided for a window period from 6^^ September, 2018 to 15^*^ September, 2018, inorder for candidates, who were applying for appearance in the CTET examinations, to correct personal details, in case of error.
4. The writ petition avers, that, owing to some issue regarding the server of the CBSE, the attempts, of the petitioner, to effect corrections in her name, and her father's name, as entered on the portal, could not fructify.
5. It is further averred that, the petitioner visited the office of the CBSE, which expressed its inability to come to her aid.
6. It is an admitted position that'tli'e class 10^ and class 12'*^ 'Certificates of the petitioner, issued by the CBSE itself, reflected the petitioner's name as "Sukriti" and her father's name as "Rajender Bhatia".
7. As such, the CBSE has itself acknowledged the name of the petitioner as "Sukriti" and name of her father as "Rejender Bhatia". The case is, therefore, clearly one in which, owing to inadvertence though, perhaps, avoidable - the petitioner entered wrong details on the web portal of the CBSE while applying for the CTET examinations. W.P.(C) 13000/2018
8. On merits, therefore, there can be no opposition to the claim of the petitioner.
9. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the CBSE, candidly acknowledges this position, but states that the petitioner was in default in not applying for correction during the window period provided for the said purpose i.e. 6^'' September, 2018 to 15^^ September, 2018.
10. He submits that the petitioner's submission that there had been a server problem, is apparently being raised as an afterthought, to get over the said lapse on the part of^he-petitioiier..
11. Be that as it may, the facts,of this case would not warrant withholding reliefto the petitioner'oh that^ground.
12. The changes soughtsbykhe pejitioner^bping in accordance with class 10* and class 12* cerllficalesi^^f'i^s^ed by the CBSE itself, the interests of justice would warrant that the request of the petitioner is allowed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
14. The CBSE is directed to reflect the name of the petitioner as "Sukriti" and the name of her father as "Rejender Bhatia" in the certificates issued consequent to the CTET examinations to be given by the petitioner.
15. Mr. Amit Bansal also submits that, in order to avoid such similar challenges, in future, costs may be imposed on thepetitioner.
16. Given the fact that the petitioner is a student on the threshold of the examinations, I do not think any suchmeasure is calledfor.
C. HAICSjH^KARTtr; ' ' " I -. • " "b- Vv;r;-.u\- • •..V- ->.;••• •.