Delhi High Court
Sanjoly Singhal vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 4 September, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 25.08.2017
Judgment delivered on : 04.09.2017
+ W.P.(C) 6035/2016
SANJOLY SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Versus
Ms Namita Roy and Mr Gautam,
Advs
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Atul Kumar, Adv for R-1.
Ms Nishtha, Adv for R-2.
Mr Puneet Saini, Adv for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The petitioner before this Court is Sanjoly Singhal. She was born on
25.01.1997 to her parents namely Sanjay Singhal and Renu Singhal at
Taluka-Deesa, District Banaskhantha, Gujrat. She was admitted to her
school by the name of Sanjoly Agrawal. She continued with the name of
Sanjoly Agrawal till her 12th class. She passed her 10th class in the year 2012.
She successfully qualified in her 12th class examination in the year 2014.
She took admission in the B.A. (Hons) course in Indraprastha College for
Women, Delhi University under the same surname Sanjoly Agrawal.
Agrawal was the name by which her community was known. The gotra of
the petitioner is Singhal and Agrawal is her community name. The petitioner
strongly felt that her surname should be changed from Sanjoly Agrawal to
Sanjoly Singhal. She made legal inquiries; she was advised to get her name
Sanjoly Agrawal published in the Gazette of India. This was in the year
2015. She also released an advertisement on 27.02.2015 widely circulated in
newspapers i.e. Indian Express and Jansatta about this change of name. It
was also published in the Gazette of India on 02.01.2016 on an application
filed by her.
2 The petitioner approached respondent No.2 (Indraprastha College for
Women) for her change of name in the college records; she was asked to
approach respondent No.1 (CBSE) to get the change of name affiliated in all
the records as well as mark-sheet and certificates issued by respondent No.1.
On 08.02.2016, she was informed by respondent No.2 that her name could
not be changed. She was accordingly constrained to file the present writ
petition.
3 Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1. They have
strongly objected to the change of name. It is submitted that this is not a
correction of spelling but it is a change of name; under the Examination
Byelaws 69.1 & 69.2, this amounts to change of name. The correction of a
spelling error is permitted but this not being a case of spelling error, the
name of the petitioner cannot be changed. Even otherwise, there is a timeline
of one year during which this change can be effected. Learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench
in LPA No.41/2017 Aditya Srivastava (Minor) through natural guardian
mother Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. wherein Bye-law
69.1 of the Examination Byelaws, 1995 of the CBSE (25.06.2015) had been
examined; the Division Bench had noted that since the change of appellant's
name had been carried out after the declaration of the result, his request for
change of name in the school records could not be acceded to. Learned
counsel for respondent No.1 has heavily relied upon this judgment to
substantiate a submission that the prayers made in the present petition cannot
be acceded to.
4 Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is not
a change in the name of the petitioner; her name continues to be the same;
her name being Sanjoly; what she is only seeking to alter is her community
name i.e. from Agrawal to Singhal (which is her gotra); she does not wish to
continue with her community name. Additional submission being that all
legal procedures, advertisement in the newspaper as also publication in the
Gazette of India have already been effected; this is not a case where the
identity of the petitioner is in dispute. To support this submission, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.2563/2017 Kumari Ananya
Chowdhary Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi & Others; in
that case where the Gazette Notification had taken place, the petitioner had
notified in the newspaper about the correction of her name; the prayer for
correction in her name was permitted; that was a correction in the spelling in
the surname of the petitioner as also in her mother's name.
5 This Court is not in agreement with this submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. What the petitioner is really seeking in the present
petition is not a mere correction in name to the extent of correction in
spelling errors under Bye-law 69.1 (ii) but instead a change in name (from
Sanjoly Agrawal to Sanjoly Singhal) as envisaged under Bye-law 69.1 (i).
The relevant Bye-law as amended vide Notification dated 25.06.2015 is
reproduced hereunder as:
"69.1 (i)
Applications regarding changes in name or surname of candidates
may be considered, provided that the changes have been admitted by the
Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication
of the result of the candidate"
6 It provides that a request for change in the name can be considered
only where the change has been admitted by the Court of law and notified in
the government gazette before the declaration of the result of the candidate.
It is an admitted position that the petitioner had enrolled in school and had
continued with her schooling under the name of Sanjoly Agrawal. She
appeared for her class 10th and class 12th Board Examinations in the years
2012 and 2014, respectively also under the same name (i.e. Sanjoly
Agrawal). It is only in the year 2015 that the petitioner felt strongly that her
name be changed to Sanjoly Singhal; thereupon she got published an
advertisement in two leading newspapers as noted supra to the same effect
and on 02.01.2016 got the change in name notified in the Gazette. It is
pertinent here to note that her marksheet cum certificate for class 10th was
issued on 24.05.2012. Since the change in name of the petitioner has been
notified in the gazette almost four years after the declaration of the result, her
request for change in name in the school records and certificates has rightly
been rejected in terms of the amended bye-law 69.1(i).
7 Applying the ratio laid down in Aditya Srivastava (supra) this Court is
of the view that the contentions of the petitioner are untenable and liable to
be rejected. Petition is without any merits. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 04, 2017/A
