Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yassalan Patel vs The Regional Officer Regional ... on 14 June, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT
INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
Writ Petition No.19292/2020
Yassalan Patel Vs. The Regional Officer, Regional Office
Date: 14.06.2021:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Laad, learned counsel for the
Petitioner.
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.
*****
Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by
the impugned order dated 10.10.2020 passed by respondent No.1
and 2 whereby application for change of his name as well as
mother's name in the mark-sheet has been rejected.
(2). Facts of the case in short as under:
The petitioner took an admission in Prestige Public School
and studied up to from class 2nd to 10th as Yassalan Patel S/o
Bhadar Patel. He appeared in the 10th class examination conducted
by respondent No.1 and 2 with the same name but certificate
issued by respondent in which word "Mohd." has been prefixed in
his name as well as name of his mother. The petitioner submitted
a representation to the respondent alongwith the birth certificate,
mark-sheet of previous class, Adhar Card, change of name in the
public news paper etc. but the respondent No.1 and 2 dismissed
the representation by placing the reliance over the Rule 69.1 i.e.
change in name the desire change in name is not consistent in the
school record. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
(3) The respondents have filed their return in support of their
action by submitting that the petitioner applied through
respondent No.3 vide letter dated 12.03.2020 alongwith school
record i.e. transfer certificate, admission form, scholar register of
the previous school in which the petitioner's name mentioned as
- : 2 :-
Mohd. Yassalan Patel and his father's name mentioned as Mohd.
Bhadar Patel, therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be
considered as per the rule prevailing. The respondent placed
reliance over the various judgments passed by this Court in which
the petitioner's were referred to civil court to seek a declaration in
respect of name.
(4) The similar controversy came up before the Apex Court in
case of Jigya Yadav (minor) through Guardian/Father Hari
Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) &
Ors. reported in 2021 SC Online 415 in which Apex Court has
issued various directions to the board and fixed the guideline for
consideration of the representation to change of name. Para 170 &
171 are reproduced below:
170. The provision for "change" of name is far more stringent and
calls for a thorough review to settle the correct position. As per the
present law, change of name is permissible upon fulfilment of two
prior conditions - prior permission of the Court of law and
publication of the proposed change in official gazette. These
conditions co-exist with another condition predicating that both
prior permission and publication must be done before the
publication of result. What it effectively means is that change of
name would simply be impermissible after the publication of
result of the candidate even if the same is permitted by a Court of
law and published in official gazette. In other words, once the
examination result of the candidate has been published, the Board
would only permit corrections in name mentioned in the
certificate. Further, changing the name out of freewill is simply
ruled out.
171. Notably, the cases before us pertain to different periods. As
aforesaid, the CBSE byelaws which existed prior to 2007 were
different. The summary of the journey of the examination byelaws
from 2007 till 2018 has been tabulated hitherto. The distinction
between "correction" and "change" was always well-demarcated
including prior to 2007. As regards the correction which could
mean to carry out modification to make it consistent with school
record but when it came to request for change of name of the
candidate or his parents, that could be done only after complying
with the pre-conditions specified therefor. However, when it came
to change in the date of birth that was completely prohibited. Only
correction regarding date of birth was permitted to be made
consistent with the school record. And for which limitation of two
years from declaration of result was specified. The requirement of
two years cannot be considered as unreasonable restriction. The
candidate and his parents are expected to be vigilant and to take
remedial measures immediately after declaration of result of the
- : 3 :-
candidate. That too for being made consistent with school record.
The Board must follow the discipline of continuation of entries in
the school record as it is vital for pursuing further and higher
education including career opportunities by the candidate.
Significantly, the position as obtained prior to 2007 did not
provide for any time limit within which correction of candidate's
name or of his parents was to be pursued. These restrictions are
certainly reasonable restrictions while recognising the enabling
power of the Board to alter its record in the form of certificates
issued to the candidate concerned to make it consistent with the
school records or otherwise.
(5). In view of the aforesaid judgment, both the parties agreed
that the matter may be remitted back to the respondent to consider
the case of petitioner in light of judgment passed by the Apex
Court in case of Jigya Yadav (Supra). Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 10.10.2020 is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back
to respondent No.1 and 2 to consider and decide the
representation to the petitioner in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court in case of Jigya Yadav (Supra) within a period of 60
days from today. Needless to say that in case of rejection of
representation the reasoned and speaking order be passed.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
praveen
PRAVEEN NAYAK
2021.06.17
17:05:48 +05'30'
