Dhruva Parate vs Cbse & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 933 Del

         *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                +     W.P.(C) 3577/2008

                                                        Reserved on: 19.02.2009
                                             Date of pronouncement: 23.03.2009

       DHRUVA PARATE                                            ..... Petitioner
                                    Through : Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate.

                                    versus

       CBSE & ANR.                                              ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate, for CBSE.

CORAM:

Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers          Yes
       may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?             Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be                 Yes
       reported in the Digest?

Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

1. The writ petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents (hereafter

called "CBSE") to change his name from "Dhruva Pramod Parate" to "Dhruva

Parate". He seeks a consequential direction to the CBSE to issue a fresh 10 th

class certificate after recording necessary change.

2. The petitioner is the son of Mr. P. M. Parate; he completed studies from

the Delhi Public School, Vasant Kunj and appeared in the Class-Xth

examination held by the CBSE in 2006. At that time, his name was "Dhruva

Pramod Parate". The mark-sheet and certificate issued by CBSE recorded

that name. It is contended that due to religious and astrological reasons, the

petitioner's name was changed from "Dhruva Pramod Parate" to "Dhruva

Parate". It is claimed that this name change was recorded by the school

authorities in Office register dated 25.05.2006. The petitioner, therefore,

sought for rectification of the name recorded by the CBSE. It is submitted

that despite several reminders, the CBSE did not accede to the request. The

petitioner submits to having got the changed name published in two daily

newspapers, i.e. the Times of India and Navbharat Times on 04.05.2006. He

also relies on the copy of an affidavit attested by the Notary Public on

27.04.2006, duly executed by his father.

3. The CBSE in its return contends that it is governed by the norms

governing the name change or correction which are contained in bye-law 69;

it is in the following terms:-

"69 Changes in Board's Certificate

69.1 Changes & Correction in Name

i. No change in name/surname once recorded in the Board's records shall be made. However, correction in the name to the extent of correction in spelling errors, factual typographical errors in candidate's name/surname, father's name/mother's name or guardian's name to make it consistent with what is given in the school record or list of candidates (LOC) submitted by the school may be made.

Provided further that in no case, correction shall include alteration, addition, deletion to make it different (except as mentioned above) from the LOC or the school records.

ii. Application for correction in name/surname will be considered only within two years of the date of declaration of result provided the application of the candidate is forwarded with the following documents:

(a) Admission form(s) filled in by the parents at the time of admission.

(b) The School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted by the parents of the candidate at the time of admission.

(c) Portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register of the school where the entry has been made in respect of the candidate.

iii. The Board may effect necessary corrections after verification of the original records of the school and on payment of the prescribed fee."

4. The CBSE submits that initially the petitioner was studying in Delhi

Public School, Noida; he migrated to Delhi Public School, Vasant Kunj in April

2003. The form filled by his father on 07.04.2003 reflected his name as

"Dhruva Pramod Parate." The CBSE also refers to the Admission Register of

the Delhi Public School and the details received from the school, which

described petitioner's name as "Dhruva Pramod Parate".

5. The CBSE relies upon the order of this Court in Naina Anand v. CBSE

(W.P. 4973/2008 dated 03.09.2008) and Miss Parul Dabas v. CBSE (W.P.

7933/2007 decided on 18.09.2008) and submits that name changes made

after the issuance of the certificate will be recorded in respect of later

examinations and no infirmity can be found with the certificate issued for an

earlier period or examination.

6. The narrow controversy requiring decision in this case is whether the

petitioner can claim the direction he seeks, for reflection of the name change

made by him after the certificate was issued, in 2006. A reading of bye-law

69 undoubtedly suggests that name changes can be considered and granted

within two years. The definition of name change includes errors,

typographical errors in the candidate's name, surname, mother's name or

alteration and deletion to bring it in conformity with the school record. The

bye-laws also suggest that a two-year period has been prescribed for suo

motu correction; they further mandate that applications regarding changes

in names, surnames etc. can be granted provided they are admitted by the

Court of law and notified by the Government Gazette before publication of

results of the candidates.

7. The applicability of bye-law 69.1 (ii), in the opinion of the Court, is

undoubtedly meant to limit the discretion of the CBSE. The two-year period

imposed by it and the restriction of having to change the name before the

publication of results are likewise self-imposed. Concededly, the question is

not governed by any statute - in that sense, there is no legislative mandate

controlling the exercise of this discretion. In this case, though the petitioner's

name was different when he appeared in the Class-X, the fact remains that it

was subsequently changed; the same was also notified in the newspapers

and the school records were duly corrected. Such being the case, when the

identity of the person, father's name and the school are undisputed and a

series of records, also reflect the name change, all that the CBSE is putting

forward is a self-imposed limitation or restriction.

8. The interests of efficiency of an organization ordinarily determine the

guidelines that have to be administered; yet when they constrain the

authorities of the organization, which is meant to sub-serve the general

public, from doing justice, in individual cases, the guidelines become self-

defeating. In such cases, as in the present one, the end result would mean

that the petitioner would be left with two certificates with different names

and a whole lifetime spent possibly on explaining the difference - hardly

conducive to him, reflecting the inadequacy in the system.

9. It is settled law that an executive agency operating within the field of

its discretion, cannot unduly fetter or circumscribe, it [Ref. Indian Aluminium

Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board) 1975 (2) SCC 414; J.K. Aggarwal

v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 1991 (2) SCC 283].

The CBSE's decision is precisely one enforcing a condition which fetters

and restricts its otherwise wide discretion in the matter. Accepting its plea

would mean fostering the injustice, which is unacceptable to the Court.

10. In view of above discussion, the writ petition deserves to succeed; the

CBSE shall issue a fresh Class X Certificate and mark-sheet, reflecting the

petitioner's changed name "Dhruva Parate". This shall be done within six

weeks of the petitioner's depositing or surrendering existing mark-sheets

and certificate. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms; no costs.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JUDGE MARCH 23, 2009 'ajk'