Abhishek Kumar @ Bal Kishan vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2909 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Date of decision: 3rd July, 2014

                             W.P.(C) 3266/2014
       ABHISHEK KUMAR @ BAL KISHAN             ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. R.K. Narang, Adv.

                          Versus
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                   ..... Respondents

Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Adv. for R-2&3.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

C.M.No.6745/2014(exemptions).

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

2. The CM stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.3266/2014.

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

i) impugns Rule 69.1 of the Examination Bye-Laws of the respondents

no.2&3 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), on the ground of the

same being illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Fundamental Rights

guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India; ii) seeks

quashing of the order dated 12th February, 2014 of the respondent CBSE

rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of his name in the records

of the respondent CBSE; and, iii) seeks a mandamus to the respondent

CBSE to change the name of the petitioner in its records as well as in the

certificates of Class X and Class XII issued to the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner:-

(a) that the petitioner, born on 18th January, 1970, was named Bal

Kishan by his parents;

(b) that the petitioner passed the Class X and Class XII

examinations conducted by the respondent CBSE in the years

1988 and 1990 respectively;

(c) that the petitioner, throughout his school and college education,

was teased by the other students about his name;

(d) that the petitioner decided to change his name from Bal Kishan

to Abhishek Kumar and his name was so mentioned in the

invitation card of his wedding held on 2nd December, 1999;

(e) that the petitioner, on 15th May, 2008, also published in

newspaper The Statesman of having so changed his name "for

all future purposes";

(f) upon being advised that for changing the name he was required

to publish a Notification to the said effect in the Gazette

published by the Government of India, the petitioner, after

declaring so by way of another insertion in the newspaper The

Sunday Express of 18th December, 2010, got published in the

Gazette of India of January 1-January 7, 2011 as under:-

"I, hitherto known as BAL KISHAN son of Late M.R. SINGH, residing at G-12/8, Gali No.4, Braham Puri, Delhi - 110 053, have changed my name and shall hereafter be known as ABHISHEK KUMAR.

It is certified that I have complied with other legal requirements in this connection.

BAL KISHAN

[Signature (in existing old name)]"

(g) that the petitioner, on 5th December, 2013 approached the Delhi

Government Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi Disputes

Resolution Society (Regd.) for a direction to the respondent

CBSE to change his name and the respondent CBSE on 9th

January, 2014 before the said Society agreed that upon the

petitioner applying for change of name, the respondent CBSE

shall consider the same sympathetically; and,

(h) that though the petitioner so applied for change of name but the

respondent CBSE vide its order dated 12th February, 2014 supra

refused to so change the name of the petitioner in its record and

in the certificates of Class X and Class XII issued to the

petitioner, for the reason of the same being permissible only

within ten years of issuance of such certificate and the

petitioner having applied for change of name on 20th January,

2014 i.e. after more than ten years of 22nd August, 1988 when

the first certificate of Class X was issued to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner contends that Rule 69.1 supra which prohibits the

petitioner from applying for change of name after ten years from the

issuance of certificate, is violative of the Constitutional mandate ensuring

each citizen liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, equality of

status and opportunity and imposes fetters on such freedom of the petitioner.

6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

7. We have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that

since the petitioner, as per Gazette dated January 1-January 7, 2011 also,

changed his name from Bal Kishan to Abhishek Kumar „with effect from the

date of the said publication‟, as is evident from use of the words "hitherto"

and "shall hereafter be known as" therein, how was the petitioner entitled to

have his name changed in the certificates issued by the respondent CBSE

prior thereto. As per the said Gazette Notification, the petitioner till the date

of publication thereof on January 1-January 7, 2011, was known as Bal

Kishan and was to be thereafter only known as Abhishek Kumar. We further

enquired that when the petitioner, till January 1-January 7, 2011 was known

as Bal Kishan, how could his name be shown as Abhishek Kumar in the

certificates issued in the years 1988 and 1990.

8. The counsel for the petitioner instead of answering the said question

has contended that the respondent CBSE having agreed before the

Conciliation Centre to entertain the application of the petitioner for change

of name, is not entitled to resile therefrom.

9. As far as the aforesaid argument of the counsel for the petitioner is

concerned, the same has to be noted to be rejected. Without going into the

sanctity of the Settlement Agreement signed before the Conciliation Centre,

the said Settlement Agreement also merely provided that the application if

made by the petitioner for change of name shall be considered

sympathetically by the respondent CBSE. It is not as if the respondent CBSE

has not abided by the Settlement Agreement. It, though has considered the

application for change of name of the petitioner, but has rejected the same

citing the rules of its Examination Bye-Laws. The Settlement Agreement

nowhere records that the respondent CBSE had agreed to change the name

of the petitioner as sought by the petitioner.

10. Else, we are of the opinion that the issuance of revised certificates

with changed name as sought by the petitioner would create a discrepancy

and reflect a status which did not exist at the time of issuance thereof. The

petitioner though has changed his name, but after the date of issuance of the

said certificates. Axiomatically the certificates cannot bear the changed

name. If anyone were to make a deeper inquiry, they will wonder that if the

name was changed only in 2011, how the changed name appears on

certificates issued on a prior date. Rather the procedure of having a Gazette

Notification for changed name is intended to obviate the said difficulties and

to give sanctity to the change in name. The said view was taken by one of us

(Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.) in Pallavi @ Pallavi Chandra Vs. C.B.S.E.

MANU/DE/2842/2010 and in order dated 9th November, 2010 in W.P.(C)

No.4044/2010 titled Ashik Gurung Vs. CBSE and which matters are not

found to have been agitated further. We see no reason to take a different

view.

11. Though in view of above there is no need to deal with the challenge

made to Rule 69.1 supra on the ground of imposing the limitation of ten

years for applying for change of name, we may record that the Division

Bench of this Court in Jigya Yadav Vs. C.B.S.E. MANU/DE/3700/2010

faced with the same challenge though on facts also held that there was no

need to deal with the challenge of the Constitutional validity on the ground

of time provided for applying for such change of ten years being arbitrary

nevertheless held Rule 69.1 to be reasonable and held that the Court has to

be reluctant to substitute its own views in such matters in preference to those

formulated by professionals having experience of dealing with working of

educational institutions. We however further find SLP CC No.7348/2011 to

have been preferred against the said judgment to have been granted on

02.05.2011 and the matter to be still pending in the Supreme Court.

12. Mention may also be made of Rule 69.2 of the said Examination Bye-

Laws which similarly imposes a time of two years for applying for

corrections of date of birth in the records of and certificates issued by the

CBSE. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwat Dayal Vs. CBSE 180

(2011) DLT 1 in relation thereto held that beyond two years correction could

not be made. The same view was reiterated by another Division Bench of

this Court in the order dated 27th May, 2011 in LPA No.496/2011 titled

Mukul Singal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education arising from a

detailed judgment dated 29th March, 2011 in W.P.(C) No.8546/2008. The

appeal thereagainst being SLP CC No.14782/2012 was dismissed in limine

on 10th September, 2012. The same view was reiterated in Chirag Jain Vs.

CBSE MANU/DE/2386/2011; LPA No.697/2011 preferred thereagainst was

dismissed on 29th August, 2011 and SLP CC No.16919/2013 preferred

whereagainst also was dismissed in limine on 30th September, 2013.

13. We therefore do not find any merit in the petition which is dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 03, 2014 pp..