Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashutosh Shrivastava vs The Board Of Secondary Education on 1 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4551
1 WP-1760-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1760 of 2012
ASHUTOSH SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2011
declining to correct the name of the his father, has approached this court for
a direction to the respondent No.1/Board to carry out requisite correction
regarding the name of his father in mark-sheets of Class-X and XII.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court
that the petitioner had passed his Class-X and XII Examination in the year
2002 and 2004 for which mark-sheets vide Annexures P/2 and P/3 were
issued in which name of his father is mentioned as "Sukhvir Shrivastav",
whereas the correct name of his father is "Sukhbasilal Shrivastava ", which is
evident from the electricity bill (Annexure P/7), mark-sheets of Class V &
VIII. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had moved an application in the year
2011 for correction of name of his father alongwith certain documents in the
mark-sheets. The said application was rejected by respondent No.1 on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4551
2 WP-1760-2012
ground of limitation. Hence, the present petition.
3. While placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of
Isha Mongia Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education passed in Writ
Petition No.15198 of 2017, decided on 15.11.2018 learned Counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that on account of any inadvertent mistake,
the student should not suffer for any wrong entry made in the mark-sheets
and accordingly, the petition was entertained directing the Board to issue the
mark sheet of Class X and XII examination mentioning the correct name of
the father of petitioner in that case.
4. Further placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the matter of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) vs.
Central Board of Secondary Education and others reported in (2021) 7 SCC
535, it was submitted that right to identity and protection of identity of
individual is guaranteed under the Constitution and then on this aspect
principles have been summarized on the touchstone of control of one's name
and freedom to modify or change one's name. Since correction of name of
father of a candidate is an important facet of identity of an individual,
therefore, the Board of Secondary Education erred in not permitting to
change the name of father of the petitioner.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that the
present petition be allowed and respondent/Board may be directed to correct
the name of his father in the mark-sheets of Class X & XII.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Board has submitted
that an application for correction of the name of his father can be considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4551
3 WP-1760-2012
only when the same is submitted within a period of three years from the date
of declaration of the result of the concerned examination the result of Class
X and XII was declared in the year 2002 and 2004 and the petitioner has
made an application in the year 2011, therefore, the instant writ petition is
not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. In support of his
submission, reliance was placed on the order passed by this Court in the
matter of Prtibha Singh vs. State of M.P. & Others in Writ Petition No.20112
of 2017, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.444 of 2018, decided on 27.02.2018 and the amended order dated
18.05.2011 issued by the Secretary, Madhyamik Sikha Mandal Bhopal,
Bhopal.
7. After hearing rival contentions and going through the record, this
Court finds that it is not a situation where the correction or rectification
cannot be done. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether in the
present case this Court should direct the respondent/Board to correct the date
of birth of the petitioner when he made an application after expiry of three
years from the date of declaration of the result. The Board should not have
rejected the application only on the ground that he moved the application
after expiry of three years from the date of declaration of the result, as three
years bar is not a statutory bar and the same is stipulated under the amended
order dated 18.05.2011 (supra) which should not come in the way of the
Board to entertain genuine grievance of a student. Even otherwise, the
correction of the name of the child/mother/father is acceptable when there is
no fraud involved in the corrections of such names.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4551
4 WP-1760-2012
8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The
respondent/Board is directed to consider the application of the petitioner on
merits and issue fresh mark-sheets to him by depicting the name of his father
as "Sukhbasilal Shrivastava " within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. The judgment cited by counsel for the respondent/Board in the
matter of Prtibha Singh vs. State of M.P. ( supra) which relates to service
matter is of no assistance to him.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
