Virender Yadav vs Central Board Of Secondary ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 5865 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Decided on : 01.12.2011

+                            W.P.(C) 8487/2011

IN THE MATTER OF
VIRENDER YADAV                                         ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. H.S. Gautam, Advocate

                    versus


CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. for respondents
                   No.1 and 2/CBSE.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

directions to the respondents to carry out necessary correction in their

records by reflecting the correct name of the father of the petitioner

therein, which is "Shri Jhabbu Lal Yadav" instead of "Shri Ram Govind

Yadav", who it is stated is the uncle of the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was five years

old when he shifted to Delhi in the year 1986 and started residing with his

paternal uncle. On account of an inadvertent mistake, the name of the

petitioner's uncle, who was his local guardian, was recorded as the name

of the father of the petitioner in the records of the educational

institutions, where the petitioner was studying. As a result, when the

petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination in the year 1997

from respondent No.3/School, the School Leaving Certificate and the

Mark-Sheet of the Secondary School Examination issued in his favour

mentioned the name of his uncle as that of his father. Again, in the year

1999, when the petitioner passed the Senior Secondary School

Examination, the same error was repeated. Admittedly, the petitioner

did not take any steps either in the year 1997, at the time of clearing

class 10 examinations or in the year 1999, at the time of clearing his

class 12 examinations, nor for a period of about 14 years thereafter, to

point out this error to respondent No.3/School or to respondents No.1 and

2/CBSE.

3. Though the writ petition is completely silent as to whether the

petitioner pursued further education after completing his Senior

Secondary School Examination in the year 1999 or the vocation that he is

currently following, counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the

petitioner had undertaken a diploma course, whereafter he is now

working in Hyderabad. After a hiatus of almost 14 years, the petitioner

wrote a letter to respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE for change of his father's

name in its records. The said letter was rejected by respondents No.1

and 2/CBSE vide reply dated 27.09.2011 stating inter alia that as per the

rules and regulations of the Board, the father's name of the petitioner

cannot be changed by the Board once it is entered into the register and

such a rectification can take place according to school record only and

within a period of 10 years from the declaration of board results.

4. In support of the aforesaid rejection order, counsel for respondents

No.1 and 2/CBSE, who appears on advance copy, hands over a copy of

the notification dated 16.10.2007 issued by CBSE notifying

amendments/additions in the Examination Bye-Laws. As per the

amendment in Rule 69.1 of Chapter 9 relating to changes and corrections

in the name of the candidate, it is stipulated that the application for such

correction would be considered only within ten years of the date of

declaration of results, provided the application of the candidate is

supported with certain documents. It is stated by the learned counsel

that the validity of the aforesaid rules were tested in a previous litigation

and were upheld by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 20.12.2010

passed in W.P.(C) 3774/2010 entitled Ms. Jigya Yadav (Minor) through

Guardian vs. CBSE & Ors. A copy of the aforesaid judgment is handed

over by the counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE and is taken on

record.

5. It is pertinent to note that there is no explanation that has come

forth from the petitioner as to the reason for the complete silence

maintained by him for almost 14 years before approaching CBSE by way

of a representation for seeking change of the name of his father in the

records of the Board. It is also relevant to note that even as per the

petitioner, his passport as also his PAN card show the correct name of his

father, hence at this stage, there is no exigency sown by the petitioner for

the name of his father to be changed in the records of respondents No.1

and 2/CBSE so belatedly. Further, the rejection order passed by the

respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE is in terms of the extant rules and no legal

flaw has been pointed out by the petitioner in the decision taken by the

respondent. In these circumstances, there is no justification for this

Court to interfere in the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by

respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE, rejecting the request of the petitioner for

change of his father's name after a passage of about 14 years. The

petition is therefore dismissed in limine as being devoid of merits.

                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER      2, 2011                                      JUDGE
rkb