Bhanu Pratap Sonwani vs The State Of Chhattisgarh 20 ... on 10 July, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Chattisgarh High Court

Bhanu Pratap Sonwani vs The State Of Chhattisgarh 20 ... on 10 July, 2018

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                                                               NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                WPC No. 1853 of 2018

        Bhanu Pratap Sonwani S/o Shri Punit Ram Sonwani Aged About 26 Years
        R/o Marauda Vijay Chowk, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

     1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of School
        Education, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

     2. The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     3. The Divisional, Shikshan Adhikshak, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     4. Sub Divisional, Shikshan Adhikshak, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     5. The District Education Officer, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

     6. The Chhattisgarh Board Secondary Education, Raipur, District- Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh.                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents / State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/07/18

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's application for correction of her father's name in the school education certificates has been rejected by the District Education Officer, Durg by order dated 02.05.2018 without considering the relevant material available on record.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned.

3. On careful perusal, it would show that by order dated 02.05.2018 the petitioner's application has been rejected and the relevant material placed on record by the petitioner has not been considered.

4. Be that as it may, the District Education Officer is directed to consider the petitioner's case strictly in accordance with law taking into consideration the material placed by the petitioner on record without being prejudiced by its order dated 02.05.2018 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

SD/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court