AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 159 wordsHeard learned counsel for the appellants. Only on the ground that the residential certificate was not granted by a competent authority, the result of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was cancelled. The learned Single Judge has found that the candidate itself was the victim of the fraud played upon her. Later on when she came to know that the residential certificate was not granted by the competent authority, immediately her guardian filed a fresh residential certificate granted by the competent authority. There is no dispute that the address given in both the certificates are correct. In that view of the matter for the fraud played upon the minor girl by some one, should not be a ground to take such harsh decision by the Board specially when subsequently certificate given by the competent authority shows that there is no misrepresentation about the factual aspect.
Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.