Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kartik Shriniwas Bandewar vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3363 Bom

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3363 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 March, 2025

Bombay High Court

Kartik Shriniwas Bandewar vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 20 March, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:8459-DB

                                                          Writ Petition No.8722/2018
                                              :: 1 ::


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                             WRIT PETITION NO.8722 OF 2018


              Kartik s/o Shriniwas Bandewar,
              Age 18 years, Occu. Student,
              R/o At Post Sonkhed, Tq. Loha,
              District Nanded                               ... PETITIONER
                    VERSUS
              1)    Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
                    Regional Office, J-Block, 16th Main Road,
                    Anna Nagar (West), Chennai 600 040
                    (Copy to be served through Assistant
                    Solicitor General of India, High Court,
                    Bench at Aurangabad)

              2)    The Principal,
                    Nagarjuna Public School, Kawatha,
                    Nanded                                  ... RESPONDENTS

                                           .......
              Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Petitioner
              Mr. Swapnil Joshi, Advocate with Mr. Chetan Chaudhari,
              Advocate i/by J.P. Legal Associates for Respondent No.1.
                                           .......
                                      CORAM:       ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
                                                   S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                                      DATE:        20th MARCH, 2025.

              ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE) :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ

Petition is heard finally.

:: 2 ::

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks

a writ of certiorari for quashment of communication dated

3/5/2018, by which the prayer of the petitioner for correction

of his name in the 10 th Standard mark sheet has been

rejected by the Central Board of Secondary Education on the

ground that the same is not supported by school record.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of the Petition, in

nutshell, are that, uncle of the petitioner got him admitted in

1st Standard in Nagarjuna Public School, Kawatha, District

Nanded and wrongly got the name of the Petitioner recorded

as Kartik s/o Shriniwas Merupulla. The father of the

Petitioner is semi-literate, educated up to 4 th Standard only

and did not notice the discrepancy which has occurred in the

name of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, after passing 10 th

Standard examination, noticed the same.

4. Thereupon, the Petitioner took steps to change his

surname and the same was notified in the Gazette of the

State Government, dated 27/11/2015, wherein the name of

the Petitioner was mentioned as Kartik Shriniwas Bandewar,

instead of Kartik Shriniwas Merupulla. It is pertinent to note

:: 3 ::

that, on the basis of the aforesaid Gazette, the name of the

Petitioner has been corrected in the mark sheet issued to the

Petitioner for 11th Standard and thereafter in respect of the

mark sheet issued by the Maharashtra Secondary Board of

and Higher Secondary Education for 12th Standard.

5. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Central

Board of Secondary Education to correct his surname in the

10th Standard mark sheet. However, the aforesaid prayer of

the Petitioner was rejected by a communication dated

3/5/2018, inter-alia on the ground that the name of the

Petitioner is not supported by school record. In the aforesaid

factual background, this Petition has been filed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that,

the Regional Office of the Central Board of Secondary

Education ought to have appreciated that the name of the

Petitioner has already been changed and the same has been

notified in the Gazette issued by the State Government. It is

further submitted that, on the basis of the aforesaid Gazette,

subsequently in the mark sheet of 11th Standard, the name of

the Petitioner has already been changed and subsequently in

:: 4 ::

the mark sheet issued by the Maharashtra State Board of

Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, the name of the

Petitioner has already been changed. Therefore, the action of

the Respondent in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for

change of name without considering the aforesaid facts is

arbitrary and the impugned order suffers from the vice of

non-application of mind.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

Respondent No.1 submitted that, the change in the name is

permissible only under Rule 69.1 (i) of the Rules framed by

the CBSE for change of date of birth and name. It is

submitted that, the change in the name of the Petitioner is

required to be made by Court of law and has to be notified in

the Government Gazette.

8. We have considered the rival submissions of both

the sides and have perused the record.

9. The relevant extract of the CBSE Rules for Change

in Date of Birth and Name reads :

"69.1(i) : Application regarding changes in name or surname of candidates may be considered, provided the changes have been admitted by the

:: 5 ::

Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate."

10. Thus, it is evident that, a prayer for change of

name can be entertained by the Central Board of Secondary

Education only if the change in name has been made by

Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette. In the

instant case, the name of the Petitioner was changed and the

same was published in the Government Gazette dated

27/11/2015, issued by the State Government. On the basis

of the aforesaid Gazette, the name of the Petitioner was

already changed in the mark sheet issued to him for the 11 th

Standard and by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary

and Higher Secondary Education for the 12th Standard.

11. The Respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-

reply to deny the averments made in the Petition. Therefore,

it is not the case of the Respondents that the correct name of

the Petitioner is Kartik Shriniwas Merupulla. Rule 69.1(i) only

provides that changes in the name or surname of the

candidates may be admitted by the Court of law and notified

in the Official Gazette before publication of the result of

candidate. Rule 69.1(i) does not provide that only in the

:: 6 ::

contingency mentioned in the Rule, change of name shall be

made. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we deem

it appropriate to direct the competent authority of the Central

Board of Secondary Education to correct the name of the

Petitioner in the 10th Standard mark sheet and migration

certificate and to mention his name as Kartik Shriniwas

Bandewar. Accordingly the Petition is disposed of. Rule made

absolute in above terms.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

FMPathan/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter