Delhi High Court
Yashika Kapoor @ Neha Kapoor vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 26 July, 2018
#10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 26.07.2018
W.P.(C) 7755/2017
YASHIKA KAPOOR @ NEHA KAPOOR .... Petitioner
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR
... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Narnaulia, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
prays as follow:
"(a) direct the respondent No.1 to consider/change the
name of the petitioner in all its academic records related
to the petitioner specifically in her Xth and XIIth
standard mark sheets and certificates immediately.
(b) declare the said amendment of 2015 dated
25.06.2015 in Rule 69.1(i) of the Examination Bye-
Laws as invalid and illegal being ultra vires and against
the Principles of natural justice."
2. It is an admitted position that, not only was the petitioner admitted to
the respondent No.2 school as Neha Kapoor but also filled up a
registration form in Class IXth for registration for the class Xth
examination, conducted by the CBSE, in the same name.
3. The petitioner qualified her class Xth examinations in May, 2016 and
was issued Grade Sheet cum Certificate of Performance in the name of
Neha Kapoor. Subsequent thereto, it is stated that, her name came to
be changed to Yashika Kapoor in December, 2016. Simultaneously,
the petitioner applied to the CBSE to permit change in her name from
Neha Kapoor to Yashika Kapoor, in all the relevant documents and
academic records, maintained by the CBSE.
4. The request made on behalf of the petitioner was declined, predicated
on the operation of the amended Rule 69.1(i) of the Examination bye-
laws, which came into force on 25.06.2015. The same is reproduced
hereinunder:
Rule No. Existing Rule Amended Rule
69.1(i) Change in name of Applications
candidate/Father/Mother/Gu regarding
ardian once entered in the changes in name
Board's record at any stage or surname of
while studying in Class candidates may
IX,X, XI, XII or thereafter, be considered,
within a period of ten years provided the
from the date of issue of first changes have
such document shall be been admitted
considered on written request by the Court of
of the candidate (not law and notified
minor)/father/mother/guardia in the
n duty forwarded by the Government
Head of the Institution Gazette before
supported by the following the publication
documents: of the result of
the candidates.
a) Original copy of two
newspapers (daily
English/Hindi
newspaper at National
level & daily
newspaper in a
vernacular langurage
circulated in the
locality), in which the
desired change has
been published.
b) Original Affidavit
duly sworn before the
Judicial Magistrate,
First Class/
Metropolitan
Magistrate/ Executive
Magistrate/ Sub
Divisional Magistrate.
c) Original copy of
Publication in
Government Gazzette.
d) Payment of prescribed
fee.
e) True Copy of
admission form filled
in by the parents duly
updated as per
Gazette Notification
of desired change and
duly attested by the
Head of the concerned
institution.
f) True Copy of School
Leaving Certificate of
the previous school
submitted by the
parent/candidate at the
time of admission and
updated as per
Gazette Notification
of desired change
duly attested by the
Head of the concerned
institution.
g) True Copy of the page
of admission and
withdrawal register of
the school where the
entry has been made
in respect of candidate
showing updation as
per Gazette
Notification of desired
change, duly attested
by the Head of the
concerned institution.
(emphasis supplied)
5. Insofar as, prayer clause (b) of the petition is concerned, a Division
Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3774/2010, titled as 'Ms. Jigya
Yadav (Minor)(through Guardian/Father Mr. Hari Singh) vs. CBSE &
Ors.', has upheld the vires of the amended Rule 69.1(i) of the
Examination bye-laws.
6. Coming to the prayer clause (a), it is an accepted position in law that,
applications for change of name, filed after the amendment of Rule
69.1(i) of the Examination bye-law, vide notification dated
25.06.2015, cannot be entertained, after the publication of the result of
the candidate.
7. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that, in
view of the circumstance that she successfully qualified in class Xth
examinations in May, 2016, prior to the amendment in Rule 69.1(i) of
the Examination bye-laws, she is entitled to the benefit of the
unamended bye-law, which permitted a candidate to seek a change in
name, within a period of 10 years from the date of issue of the
document.
8. The above legal position is no longer res integra, in terms of the
decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) 5232/2015, titled as 'Kalpana
Thakur and Anr. vs. CBSE' and LPA 41/2017, titled as 'Aditya
Srivastava (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian Mother vs. CBSE & Anr.'.
9. The present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
JULY 26, 2018
as
