Delhi High Court
Bharat Sood Through Harvinder ... vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 31 March, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 311/2011
Bharat Sood through Harvinder Sood ....Appellant
Through Mr. Raman Gandhi, Advocate.
VERSUS
Central Board of Secondary Examination .....Respondent
Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
% 31.03.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The appellant Bharat Sood, minor through Ms. Harvinder Sood,
by the present intra court appeal has prayed for directions against the
respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE, for short) for
amendment/change in the name of his mother in the qualifying
certificate and the mark-sheet issued for the 10th class examination.
The name of appellant's mother as per school records which was
communicated to the CBSE and mentioned in the 10th class certificate,
issued in May, 2010 is 'Kavita Sood'. The appellant states that his
mother has changed her name from 'Kavita Sood' to 'Harvinder Sood'
as per Gazette Publication dated 4th December, 2010. It may be noticed
that the 10th class certificate and mark-sheet was issued to the
appellant by the CBSE on 28th May, 2010.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
had got the school records amended on 14th May, 2010 and the name
of the appellant's mother was changed to 'Harvinder Sood', which is
before the issuance of the certificate by the CBSE on 28th May, 2010.
3. The aforesaid contention does not merit acceptance in view of
the Bye-law 69.1 of the Central Board of Secondary Education Bye-laws,
which reads as under:-
"69.1 Changes and corrections 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 ten 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 appellant had appeared in Class 10th examination and the
results of the examination were declared in May, 2010. The
change of name was recorded in the records of the school on 14th May,
2010. The 10th Class certificate and the mark which has been issued as
per the school records, as they existed before and at the time when the
examinations held. In the forms, which were filled up for the
examination, the name of the mother of the appellant was mentioned
as 'Kavita Sood' and not as 'Harvinder Sood'. In view of the bar and the
prohibition in the Bye law 69.1 quoted above, the appellant is not
entitled to the change/amendment.
5. Relying upon the judgment of Single Judge of this Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 3577/2008, Dhruva Parate vs. CBSE & Anr., learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that Bye-law 69.1 should be
declared as unconstitutional and ultra-vires. It is noticed that no such
plea was taken in the writ petition. Even otherwise, the validity of the
said bye-law has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 3771/2010, Ms. Jigya Yadav (Minor) vs. CBSE & Ors.,
decided on 20th December, 2010. The said judgment elaborately dealt
with the said issue and has held that bye-law 69.1 is valid and has to be
complied with. The said judgment was followed by us in LPA No.
783/2010, Bhagwat Dayal vs. CBSE & Ors., decided on 24th February,
2011 and it was held that no change can be made in the Class 10th
certificate after the same has been issued and the same is in accord
with the form which was submitted to the CBSE and the school records.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
appeal and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
March 31, 2011
kkb
