Delhi High Court
Imran Ali Khan vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 6 February, 2019
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 06.02.2019
+ LPA 128/2017
IMRAN ALI KHAN ..... Appellant
Through Mr. M. Rais Farooqui, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has come to be preferred assailing the
order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the ld. Single Judge, whereby, WP(C) No.
6996/2016 preferred by the petitioner, in effect, seeking correction of the
mother's name of his daughter Ms. Filza Khan, appearing in the records of
the respondents as "Kiran Khan" to "Fakiha Khan", and the consequent
issuance of the fresh grade sheet-cum-certificate of performance of
Secondary School Examination (Session 2013-2015), was dismissed.
2. Concisely, the relevant facts are that at the time of admission of Ms.
Filza Khan with the respondent No.2 school, the name of her mother was
recorded as Ms. Kiran Khan. This happened, when she was admitted in the
school in Class-I in the year 2005 and continued to remain so, over the
years. Such particulars came to be furnished by the respondent No.2 school
to the respondent No.1 Board. Resultantly, in the grade sheet-cum-certificate
of performance of All India Secondary School Examination-2015 of
Ms.Filza Khan, with Roll No. 8212966, her mother's name came to be
mentioned "Kiran Khan". At this stage, the parents realized that the name
appearing in the certificate was not the actual mother's name inasmuch as
the real/original name of the mother of Ms. Filza Khan was Ms. Fakiha
Khan and not Ms. Kiran Khan. According to the petitioner, Ms. Kiran Khan
was the nick name of Ms. Fakiha Khan and inadvertently, it had come to be
so stated in the admission form, when Ms.Filza Khan was got admitted in
class - I with the respondent No.2 school. On getting to know of such
inadvertent mistake, the petitioner made application dated 05.04.2016 to the
respondent No.2 school for correction/change in the name of the mother of
his daughter and that was duly forwarded to the respondent No.1. In the
absence of any satisfactory response from the respondent No.1, the
petitioner approached this court by way of WP(C) 4809/2016 and on that,
this court issued direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the application
made by the petitioner within four weeks. On this, the respondent No.1 vide
its communication dated 27.05.2016 adverting to the amendment of Rule
69.1(i) of its Examination Bye-laws, which were notified vide notification
dated 25.06.2015, conveyed that the request made was not allowed by the
competent Authority. It resulted into filing of the WP(C) 6996/2016 by the
petitioner, which has come to be dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. Respondent No.1 had carried out additions/amendments in its
Examination Bye-laws relating to the change(s) and correction(s) vide
notification dated 25.06.2015, and, relevant to the context, the amendments
to Bye-law Nos. 69.1(i) and 69.1(ii), read 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/ Mother's/ of Candidate/Father's/ Mother's/
Guardian's name will be considered Guardian's name will be
only within ten years of the date of considered only within one year of
declaration of result provided the the date of declaration of result
application of the candidate is provided the application of the
forwarded by the Head of candidate is forwarded by the
Institution with the following Head of Institution with the
attested documents: following attested documents :
.................................................... ...........................................................
A bare reading of the above-said amended Rule 69.1(i) would show
that for all intents and purposes, it would be attracted, when an application is
made for change in name or surname and, on such changes having been
admitted by the court of law and notified in the Govt. Gazette. Was the case
of the petitioner a change of name inviting an admission or declaration by a
court of law and/or the notification thereof in the Govt. Gazette, we observe,
is the moot question for consideration.
4. Having considered the diverse aspects and the admitted factual
conspectus on record, we find, the case in hand, is not a case of any change
of name, but, a mere correction in the mother's name of the child Ms. Filza
Khan. Apparently, an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the mother's
nickname "Ms. Kiran Khan" in the admission form in the year 2005, got
transmitted by the respondent No.2 school to the respondent No.1 Board.
The application made by the petitioner was not for any change of name, but,
for correction of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the
mother in the admission form as "Kiran Khan" instead of "Fakiha Khan",
which fact, undisputedly, finds support from the birth certificate dated
17.12.02, copy whereof forms part of the record as Annexure-P1. This birth
certificate clearly mentions that Ms. Filza Khan was born to the petitioner
and Ms. Fakiha Khan. The applicant has placed on record other documents,
such as the educational certificates of the mother Fakiha Khan, her passport
etc., which show that her name always was Fakiha Khan. Thus, it is not a
case of change of name of the mother to Kiran Khan, from Fakiha Khan,
post the filling up of the examination form of the appellant's daughter.
Pertinently, even in the documents relating to the daughter of the appellant
Filza Khan, such as her Birth Certificate, the name of the mother is recorded
as "Fakiha Khan" and not "Kiran Khan". Thus, the case in hand is certainly
not a case of change of name as contemplated under Rule 69.1(i). It is also
not a case of correction in spelling errors and factual typographical errors as
contemplated under Rule 69.1(ii). The case in hand is completely founded
on the premise of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the
mother in the admission form, which was filled way back in the year 2005 at
the time of admission of the child in class -I. Such a case is neither covered
under Rule 69.1(i), nor Rule 69.1(ii). We also observe that the subject
Examination Bye-laws are not statutory, as observed to by the Co-ordinate
Bench in Mazhar Saleem Chandroth (Minor) Thr. Saleem Chandroth
(father and natural guardian) vs. Central Board of Secondary Education,
LPA 315/2017 decided on 16.04.2018. In the given facts and the
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be left high and dry for the redressal of
the grievance relating to his minor child.
5. We feel, the respondent No.1 Board has been too recalcitrant in a case
of the kind in hand inspite of the clear and specific observations made by the
Co-ordinate bench of this in Mazhar Saleem's case (supra), to the following
effect :
"Extant rules applicable to the appellant however, do not
extend such discretion. At least, none has come to be pointed
out during the course of hearing. We therefore, do not find any
merit in the appeal. This court is also of the opinion that the
validity of the Bye-laws was upheld in the previous judgments.
Undoubtedly the nature of the Bye-laws (which are not
statutory) are restrictive. The CBSE is not obliged to, nor is
shown to provide specific warning to students or their parents
about the conclusive nature of the Bye-laws, whose time-lines
are focused to cater to organizational convenience. India is a
vast country; not all students who join affiliated schools are
from affluent backgrounds or have fully aware and educated
parents. Such students are admitted to CBSE affiliated schools,
on asparitional basis, by such parents who might not accurately
reflect the full or correct names. By the time the student
realises this error (of omission) it is too late: furthermore, she
cannot be said to realise the importance of the incorrect name
because in most cases, she would be not even a major. The
repercussions of this finality due to the nature of Bye-laws are
serious, because every other document - identity, passport, etc.
would reflect another name. In this age, when capturing name
and identify consistently becomes the key for education, travel
and employment, inconsistencies (such as the inevitable
consequence of the way Bye-law 69.1 is cast) lead to denial of
opportunity. These aspects need to be re-examined by the
CBSE within six months, to suitably re-cast its Bye-laws to
provide a better mechanism to reflect name changes like the
present case."
During the course of hearing, when the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 Board was queried as to what steps have been taken by the
respondent No.1 in the light of the foregoing observations for re-casting of
the Bye-laws, it came to be stated that but for extending the time limit for
making the applications in consonance with the Rules from one year to five
years, no other decision has come to be taken. This attitude of the
respondent No.1 Board cannot be appreciated.
6. The adoption of a strict and restrictive approach in the matter of
change or correction of name of the candidate or his/her parents, in the
certificates issued by the respondent No.1, cannot be justified on the
foundation that such changes, when made later, may be exploited to mislead
all concerned about the identity of the candidate. Such a strict and
restrictive approach cannot be justified merely on the ground of some
administrative inconvenience. After all, respondent No.1 charges the fee to
cover its costs for undertaking such an exercise. In the present case, there is
no possibility of the identity of the candidate Filza Khan being changed by
permitting the change of name of her mother from "Kiran Khan" to Fakiha
Khan", since the name of the child/ candidate; the name of the father; the
date and place of birth, continue to remain the same. Even the name of the
mother - which is now sought to be brought on record, is the real name of
the mother which has always remained so and the same name of the mother
is also reflected in the Birth Certificate of the child/ candidate Filza Khan.
In fact, the non-amendment of the name of the mother of the child/
candidate from "Kiran Khan" to "Fakiha Khan" would, in future, lead to
confusion and may mar the future prospects of the child/ candidate while
seeking admissions to institutions of higher education, or employment.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and
the respondents are directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the
mother's name of Ms. Filza Khan (Roll No. 8212966 - Session 2013-2015)
and issue her fresh grade sheet-cum-certificate of performance of Secondary
School Examinations, with all consequential effects, within four weeks from
today. For the hardships to which the petitioner has been subjected to in the
given facts and circumstances of the case, the costs, quantified at `20,000/-,
are imposed upon the respondent No.1 and shall be payable to the
petitioner. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
VIPIN SANGHI, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
rc
