ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has payed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.1.2022 passed by the National Stock Exchange of India Limited wherein the status of the petitioner is shown as cancelled. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of stock / share trading as a subbroker in the share market. It is further the case of the petitioner that the company was desirous to provide services of trading platform in the area of Capital Markets, Future and Options and Currency Derivatives of National Stock Exchange to its clients, the petitioner approached ACML Capital Markets Limited to become agent of trading member. 2.1 A meeting of the Directors of the petitioner company was held on 13.11.2021 and one Mr.Yashwant Amratlal Thakkar, who was the Managing Director of the company was declared as authorized signatory / authroized person of the petitioner company to become authorized person under ACML Capital Markets Limited. Thereafter, on 6.1.2022 an agreement of `Trading Member and Authorized Person Agreement’ was executed between the petitioner and ACML Capital Markets Limited and letter to that effect was also sent by the petitioner company on 12.1.2022. However, when the petitioner tried to get the online status of his application on 20.1.2022 the petitioner found that its application is cancelled on the ground that its authorized signatory i.e. Mr.Yashwant Thakkar as well as other Director Mr.Rashmikant Thakkar could not submit Standard 10 marks sheet as required under Rule 4.1(e) of the Circular dated 6.11.2009 issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, as according to the petitioner However, on perusal of Annexure-B dated 6.11.2009, this Court could not find as to which authority has issued the aforesaid circular, as name of the authority is not mentioned anywhere. 2.2 According to learned advocate for the petitioner, both the authorized signatory as well as director viz. 2.2 According to learned advocate for the petitioner, both the authorized signatory as well as director viz. Mr.Yashwant Thakkar and Mr.Rashmikant Thakkar, respectively could not produce the marks sheet of Standard 10, and therefore, in view of the above referred circular, more particularly, in view of clause 4.1(e) the applicant was required to be provided the proof of passing of Standard 10 examination from an institution recognized by the Government as the same could not be produced, the application of the petitioner was cancelled. The aforesaid action of the respondent authority is challenged by way of this petition. 3. Mr.Nirav Sanghvi, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner company have passed Standard 10 examination before 40 years and they do not have any record available with him indicating that they have passed Standard 10 examination from a Government recognized institution, and therefore, instead of providing marks sheet of Standard 10 examination conducted by the Government recognized institution. However, both authorized signatory and director of petitioner company produced school leaving certificates of by Bhakta Vallabh Dhola Vidhya Vihar High School, Ahmedabad. The school leaving certificate in respect of authorized signatory Mr.Yashwant Thakkar which is also photocopy of the duplicate certificate issued on 1.7.2008 indicates that the authorized signatory Mr.Yashwant Thakkar was studying in 11th Standard in June, 1974, whereas the director of the petitioner Mr.Rashmikant Thakkar was studying in Standard 10 in June, 1976. Learned advocate for the petitioner states that the aforesaid certificates would indicate that both the authorized persons of the company have completed Standard 10 and the said aspect was also substantiated by the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner company by filing their affidavits starting that they have passed Standard 10 examination. However, nothing from the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board, which usually takes up examinations of 10th Standard was submitted before the authority. 3.1 Further, it is not the case of the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner that they have passed Standard 10 examination from any other institution other that the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board taking up the Standard 10 examination. As the petitioner could not meet with the aforesaid requirement, the petitioner's application was cancelled. 3.1 Further, it is not the case of the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner that they have passed Standard 10 examination from any other institution other that the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board taking up the Standard 10 examination. As the petitioner could not meet with the aforesaid requirement, the petitioner's application was cancelled. 3.2 Mr.Sanghvi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the authority ought to have inferred from the school leaving certificate issued by the school and on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner that they have cleared Standard 10 Examination and could have granted the application of the petitioner for treating them as authorized person of the company. 3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner also pointed out that in the year 2018 the same company was enjoying the status of authorized person on the basis of some documents, and therefore, the authority was not justified in rejecting ht application of the petitioner. 4. Except the above, no other submissions were made by learned advocate for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. Clause 4.1(e) of the circular dated 6.11.2009 issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India specifically provides requirement about passing of Standard 10 or equivalent examination from an institution recognized by the Government. Clause 4 is in respect of eligibility criteria and the aforesaid being one of the requirements, the petitioner was required to produce some material to indicate that the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner have cleared Standard 10th examination. The only say of the petitioner is that the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner have cleared Standard 10 examination in the decade of 1970’s, and therefor, at this juncture when Mr.Yashwant Thakkar and Mr.Rashmikant Thakkar both authorized signatory and director are in their sixties, ant it would not be possible for them to preserve the record, and therefore, they could not produce Standard 10th marks sheets as required by the respondent authority. 5.2 The aforesaid submission cannot be said to be a convincing reason for the reason that the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner could have approached the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board for getting a duplicate marks sheet or a certificate to that effect to indicate that they have passed Standard 10th examination. 5.2 The aforesaid submission cannot be said to be a convincing reason for the reason that the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner could have approached the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board for getting a duplicate marks sheet or a certificate to that effect to indicate that they have passed Standard 10th examination. 5.3 Though this Court repeatedly asked learned advocate for the petitioner that why they have not made any attempt to get duplicate mark sheets or certificates from the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board, which can be considered by the respondent authority as a valid document to indicate that the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner have passed Standard 10 Examination, learned advocate for the petitioner has no answer to that. Instead learned advocate for the petitioner insisted upon considering the school leaving certificate of concerned school indicating that the authorized signatory and director of the petitioner have studied up to standard 11. 5.4 In fact, on perusal of the record, this Court finds that it is only Mr.Yashwant Thakkar whose school leaving certificate indicates that he was studying standard 11 and school leaving certificate of Mr.Rashmikant Thakkar indicates that lastly he was studying in 10th standard only. Further, though school leaving certificates cannot be considered to be valid document as required in clause 4.1(e) of the Circular for being registered as authorized person was to produce a documentary evidence showing that they have passed Standard 10th examination from Government recognized institution, and therefore, the respondents were justified in cancelling the application of the petitioner as the authorized signatory and director of petitioner could not produce any document issued by the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board indicating that either Mr.Yashwant Thakkar or Mr.Rashmikant Thakkar passed standard 10 examination taken by the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Examination Board. 5.5 In view of the above, the action of the respondents in cancelling the application preferred by the petitioner for treating them as authorized persons, cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous action, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. In view of the above discussion and in absence of any merit, this petition is required to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Notice discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.