Delhi High Court
Arya Kariyatil Chendakera vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 16 April, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : April 16, 2018
+ LPA 705/2017 & CM APPL. 39803/2017
ARYA KARIYATIL CHENDAKERA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Swastik Singh and Mr. Atul
Singh, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Thomas, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
This Letter Patent Appeal has come to be preferred
assailing the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the ld. Single
Judge dismissing WP(C) 7873/2017 filed by the appellant
seeking correction(s)/amendment(s) in her name as also in the
names of her mother and the father in the records of the
respondents and the class X Grade Sheet cum Certificate of
Performance, hereafter "the subject document" dated 28.05.2016
issued by the first respondent, hereafter "CBSE".
2. It is the case of the appellant that she was a student of the
2nd respondent, hereafter "the school" and studying in class XII,
while CBSE was responsible for the conduct of the
Examinations and the issuance of the subject document.
According to the appellant, her own correct name as also that of
her parents was Ms.Arya Kariyatil Chendakera, Sh. Kariyatil
Chendakera Deleep Kumar and Smt. Kavitha Deleep but on
account of inadvertence came to be recorded as Arya K C, K C
Dilip and Kavitha Dilip in the school records and that has
resulted into issuance of the subject document. To support the
plea, the appellant asserts that the correct names of her parents
are so recorded even in their respective passport and the Aadhar
Card and that, in the event, the necessary corrections are not
carried out, it would result into unnecessary hardships. The
Single Judge dismissed the petition observing that the relief
claimed could not be granted as it amounted to change of name
as envisaged under CBSE Bye-law 69.1(i) of the Examination
Bye-laws 1995 and that, the change of name is sought beyond
one year after the declaration of the result. In support of such
plea, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in LPA no. 41/2017 Aditya Srivastava
(Minor) through natural guardian mother Vs. Central Board of
Secondary Education & Anr.
3. The appellant questions the impugned order on the premise
that she merely seeks a correction in the names and to which
effect a gazette notification dated 20.05.2017 was already issued
and that the correction sought falls within the purview of
amended Bye-law 69.1 (ii) and not 69.1(i). It is thus the plea of
the appellant that the ld. Single Judge fell into error in concluding
that the appellant was actually seeking change of names rather
than correction. In support of such plea, appellant has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P. (C) 1672/2017 Khushbu Kaushik vs. Central Board of
Secondary Education and Anr.
4. The CBSE opposes the appellant's submissions stating that
the impugned judgment is in order and does not call for
interference. It highlights Bye-law 69 to say that certificates
cannot be amended time and again at the whims of the candidates
and this causes administrative inconvenience.
5. Undisputedly, vide notification dated 25.06.2015, CBSE
carried out additions/amendments in its Examination Bye-laws
and thereunder, it, inter alia, carried out amendments to Bye-law
nos. 69.1(i) and 69.1(ii) relating to change(s) and correction(s) in
the names. Relevant extracts thereof, are as under :
Rule No. Existing Rule Amended Rule
69.1(i) Change in name of Applications regarding changes in
candidate/Father/Mother/Guardian name or surname of candidates
once entered in the Board's record may be considered, provided the
at any stage while studying in changes have been admitted by the
Class IX, X, XI, XII or thereafter, Court of law and notified in the
within a period of ten years from Government Gazette before the
the date of issue of first such publication of the result of the
document shall be considered on candidate.
written request of the Candidate
(not minor)/
father/mother/guardian duly
forwarded by the Head of the
Institution supported by the
following documents :
....................................................
69.1(ii) Correction in name to the extent of Correction in name to the extent of
correction in spelling errors, correction in spelling errors,
factual typographical errors in the factual typographical errors in the
Candidate's name/Surname, Candidate's name/ Surname,
Father's name/Mother's name or Father's name/ Mother's name or
Guardian's name to make it Guardian's name to make it
consistent with what is given in the consistent with what is given in the
school record or list of candidates school record or list of candidates
(LOC) submitted by the school (LOC) submitted by the school
may be made. may be made.
Application for correction in name Application for correction in name
of Candidate/Father's/ of Candidate/Father's/
Mother's/Guardian's name will be Mother's/Guardian's name will be
considered only within ten years of considered only within one year of
the date of declaration of result the date of declaration of result
provided the application of the provided the application of the
candidate is forwarded by the Head candidate is forwarded by the
of Institution with the following Head of Institution with the
attested documents: following attested documents :
.................................................... ...................................................
6. A bare perusal of the afore-said bye-laws shows that the
change(s) and the correction(s) as provided for, are to be dealt
with distinctly. It therefore necessarily follows that to deal with
any such application, one has to first consider as to whether the
application made is for a change or correction in the name(s). In
this perspective, when one adverts to the case in hand, it is seen
that the application made by the appellant was actually for
corrections and not for any change in the name(s). What is
sought, put in a simple manner, is as follows :
Recorded name Proposed to be recorded
Appellant Arya K C Ms. Arya Kariyatil Chendakera
Father of appellant K.C. Dilip Sh. Kariyatil Chendakera Deleep Kumar
Mother of appellant Kavitha Dilip Smt. Kavitha Deleep
7. A careful look into the names appearing in the subject
document and the amendments proposed only leads to the
conclusion that appellant, in effect, seeks to furnish the full name,
surname, and the middle name of the respective persons. In other
words, the abbreviations used for the name, middle name or the
surnames are only sought to be done away with. Such
corrections in the school records and 'the subject document' in
our considered view by no means can be construed to be a
change of name. Though, the surname is sought to be
corrected/amended as 'Deleep' instead of 'Dilip', it also has the
effect of correction only rather than a change. It is thus seen that
the application made by the appellant was actually for the
correction in names rather than for any change. The reliance
placed upon Aditya Srivastva's case (supra) by the ld. Single
Judge, in our considered view, was misplaced inasmuch as, in
that case, the appellant had sought change in name from 'Randhir
Srivastava' to 'Aditya Srivastava' and for the purpose, reliance
was placed upon un-amended Bye-law 69.1(i). That is not the
position in the case in hand. The instant case, in our considered
view, falls within the category of Bye-law 69.1(ii), which deals
with the correction in the names. It is also not the case nor was it
pointed out during the hearing that the identity of either the
appellant or her parents or their relationship is in dispute. What is
asserted to by the appellant, in fact, also finds support from the
gazette notification for correction in names issued on 26.05.2017
as also the respective passports and the Aadhar Card, which are
duly supported by an affidavit. It is thus clear that the appellant's
application was required to be considered for correction in name
as provided for under Bye-law 69.1(ii). The plea urged to the
contrary in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of CBSE is
therefore, wholly misconceived and meritless.
8. Though, apparently, there is a delay of about four days in
making of the application for the correction in the names
inasmuch as, the date of publication of the subject document in
the official gazette is 26.05.2017 and the application came to be
made by the appellant to the school on 30.05.2017, at this stage,
when we are of the opinion that the application if made within
time, was required to be allowed and the stand taken by the
CBSE regarding applicability of Bye-law 69.1(i) instead of Bye-
law 69.1(ii) is wholly untenable, we do not consider it necessary
to subject the appellant to the rigors of making a fresh
application seeking correction in the name(s) in the records of the
school or the CBSE while seeking condonation of delay of 4/5
days, as may be permissible. Moreso, for the reason that the
appellant is yet to appear for another Board Examination to be
held by CBSE for 10+2 and that shall call for issuance of another
Grade Sheet/Certificate.
9. In view of the foregoing, it is directed that the respondent
CBSE shall carry out the necessary corrections in the name(s) of
the appellant as also her parents in their respective records and
shall consequentially also issue a modified/corrected Grade Sheet
cum Certificate of Performance to the appellant within four
weeks.
10. The appeal is allowed in the above-said terms. The
pending application also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
APRIL 16, 2018
rc
