The High Court of Delhi has rejected a legal challenge against the appointment of Nidhi Chhibber, a senior IAS officer, as the chairperson of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The court's decision is based on the assertion that she possesses the necessary qualifications for the role.

The High Court expressed its lack of inclination to issue a writ of quo warranto because the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. The court concluded that Nidhi Chhibber is indeed qualified for the position of the chairperson of the CBSE.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh characterized the petition filed by the Independent School Federation of India as a "clear and inappropriate misuse of the legal system."

The writ of quo warranto is typically issued when the court, within its writ jurisdiction, determines that the individual holding a public office lacks the necessary qualifications for the said position. This writ serves to prevent an unqualified person from occupying that specific role.

In this particular instance, the High Court has decided against issuing a writ of quo warranto because the petitioner's counsel did not present a prima facie case to support their argument.

The court issued the order in response to a petition that alleged Nidhi Chhibber's appointment was a result of a bureaucratic reshuffle and that she did not meet the necessary terms and conditions for the role.

The petitioner requested the court to compel the production of the complete record concerning the officer's eligibility and experience.

Following the court's instructions, Chhibber submitted documents pertaining to her qualifications for the position of CBSE chairperson. She also cited specific documents to demonstrate that she had accumulated 48 months of experience in the Education department while holding the position of Director.

Her legal representative argued that the accusations presented in the petition regarding her qualifications, specifically the claim that she lacks the minimum three years of experience in the field of education, are inaccurate.

Upon reviewing the submitted documents, the court expressed its initial satisfaction with the statements made in the petition. The court concluded that the official records indicated that the officer met the eligibility requirements for the position.