Rajasthan High Court

Mohit Sharma S/O Chandra Prakash ... vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 9 February, 2021

Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13335/2020

Mohit Sharma S/o Chandra Prakash Sharma, Aged About 15
Years, R/o Plot No. 40, Indra Colony, Behind Lic Office
Madanganj Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305801 (Raj.) Through
Legal Guardian Chandra Prakash S/o Purshottam Sharma Age 42
Year.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.      Central Board Of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra,
        Community Centre, Preet Vihar Delhi-110092
2.      Regional Officer, Central Board Of Secondary Education,
        Regional Office, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer.
3.      K.d. Jain Public School, Near Ravindra Rangmunch,
        Madanganj, Kishangarh, Ajmer Raj. Through Its Principal
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhisar Bhanu, Adv.

For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. MS Raghav, Adv.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

                                      Order

09/02/2021

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the communication dated 26.05.2020, whereby

request of the petitioner to change his and his parents' surname

has been declined by the Central Board of Secondary Education

(for short 'CBSE').

The petitioner further seeks direction for correction of his

name as 'Mohit Sharma' instead of 'Mohit Palod' including change

in the surname of his father and mother, i.e., from Mr. Chandra

(2 of 7) [CW-13335/2020]

Prakash Palod to Mr. Chandra Prakash Sharma and from Mrs. Saroj

Palod to Mrs. Saroj Sharma, respectively.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, after his

admission in the school from Class 1 st to Class 8th, erroneously got

surname as 'Mohit Palod' and, in fact, the said surname 'Palod' is

only 'Gotra' of the caste 'Sharma' and as such, innocuous mistake

was committed while mentioning 'Gotra - Palod'.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had made a

request to the school authorities in the Class 9 th to correct the

name of petitioner and his parents in the school record.

Learned counsel submitted that younger brother of the

petitioner is also studying in the same school and his name has

been mentioned has Rohit Sharma and name of his father is

mentioned as Mr. Chandra Prakash Sharma and name of the

mother has been recorded as Mrs. Saroj Sharma.

Learned counsel submitted that when the request for

correction in the name was made, the respondents vide order

dated 26.02.2020 has rejected prayer of the petitioner as per Bye-

laws 69.1(ii) of CBSE Examination Bye-laws insisting that change

can be made only after publication in the Official Gazette and on

order of the Court.

Learned counsel submitted that after communication of the

official respondents, vide letter dated 26.05.2020, the petitioner

also got published an Official Gazette dated 10.09.2020, where it

has been informed to all that name of the petitioner is changed

from 'Mohit Palod' to 'Mohit Sharma' and he will be known in

future by name of 'Mohit Sharma' and copy of the Official Gazette

has been placed on record as Annexure-7 of the writ petition.

(3 of 7) [CW-13335/2020]

Learned counsel submitted that Bye-laws, framed by CBSE,

are non-statutory and directory in nature and they cannot be read

as mandatory.

Learned counsel submitted that this Court in SB Civil Writ

Petition No. 14035/2019 (Sushadhri Gautam Vs. CBSE &

Anr.) has considered the similar controversy and vide order dated

24.09.2019 has permitted change in father's name of petitioner

therein

Learned counsel - Mr. MS Raghav, appearing for the

respondent - CBSE, has opposed the prayer made by the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

admission of the petitioner in Class 1 st was as 'Mohit Palod' and

consistently up to Class 8th, his name was shown as 'Mohit Palod'

and as such, he refers to the documents filed with the reply to

show that in the school record, the petitioner had always shown

his name to be as 'Mohit Palod'.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that

the Authorities have rightly passed the order dated 26.05.2020

rejecting prayer of the petitioner to change his surname and

surname of his parents.

Learned counsel further submitted that the relevant Bye-law

69.1(i), as amended by the Notification dated 01.02.2018,

requires that application regarding change in name or surname of

candidates/parents may be considered provided that changes

have been permitted by the Court of law and notified in the

Government Gazette before publication of the result of the

candidate.

(4 of 7) [CW-13335/2020]

Learned counsel submitted that merely Gazette Notification

in the Government Gazette will not meet the requirement of Rule

69.1(i), as name of the petitioner has not been changed with the

permission of the Court of law and as such, the petitioner may not

be granted any relief in the present case.

Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner and his

parents should have been vigilant to get the surname corrected at

the appropriate stage when the petitioner was admitted in the

school and it is too late to claim change of surname for the

petitioner as well as for his parents.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and

perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the petitioner is presently student of

Class 10th and his result is yet to be declared by CBSE. The Board

would be required to disclose the name and surname of the

petitioner at the time of publication of result in the relevant papers

including mark-sheet, etc.

This Court further finds that the petitioner had already

undertaken the exercise of publication to get his surname

corrected in the Official Gazette and as such, he has partly met

with the condition, which is enumerated in the Examination Bye-

laws Rule 69.1(i).

This Court finds that the Bye-laws of CBSE in respect of

change of name has been held to be only directory in nature.

This Court finds that in the case of Sushadhri Gautam Vs.

CBSE & Anr. (supra), this Court considering the judgment earlier

passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4362/2017 (Arpit

Agarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Examination &

Ors.) dated 28.08.2017, has found that if there is no intentional

(5 of 7) [CW-13335/2020]

omission on the part of the candidate to hide anything or to

mislead the Authorities, the relief of change of surname name and

surname cannot be denied.

The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court is quoted as hereunder:-

"This Court finds that similar controversy arose for consideration in the case of Arpit Agarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.4362/2017) and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 28th August, 2017, has given directions to the respondent Board for changing name of father of the candidate, which was mentioned as RB Gupta in place of Ram Bharosi Gupta in the mark-sheet/certificate of Class - X. Relevant paras of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arpit Agarwal are quoted hereunder for ready reference :

"Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that CBSE cannot be allowed to take a very technical view of the matter, relating to changes of details in a mark-sheet/ certificate issued by it. Even though the petitioner and his parents were not careful while filling the form for admission of the petitioner to the school and while filling up the examination form for the secondary school examination to be conducted by the CBSE in the year 2016, their carelessness and casualness cannot be held to unrectifiable, to do so, would be wholly insensitive and arbitrary. CBSE's Examination Bye-laws on the issue of change of details in the mark-

sheet/certificate issued by it are merely directory to be applied with reference to the facts of each case. To hold them to be mandatory would entail a challenge, quite sustainable to their arbitrariness and hence unconstitutionality.

The impugned order dated 14-3-2017 is therefore quashed and set aside for being

(6 of 7) [CW-13335/2020]

vitiated by non application of mind. The petitioner's application for change of his father's name from R.B. Gupta to Ram Bharosi Gupta in the petitioner's mark- sheet/certificate of Class-X be actively considered with due application of mind to facts on record within a period of three weeks from today.

However, for the unnecessary litigation occasioned by the petitioner and his parents' carelessness, the petitioner is directed to deposit as costs Rs.10,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Jaipur, and Rs.10,000/- with the Regional Director, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Ajmer.

The petition stands accordingly allowed."

This Court finds that the petitioner has been deprived from right to get the name of her father to be changed, in full letters instead of abbreviation.

This Court further finds that the authorities were also required to consider that the circumstances, under which, father of the petitioner was posted at different places in Indian Army. There was no intentional omission on their part to hide anything or to mislead the authorities except having name of the father of the petitioner in abbreviation as U.S.Gautam instead of Umashanker Gautam.

Accordingly, this Court allows the present writ petition. The respondents are directed to issue mark- sheet/certificate of Class - X in favour of the petitioner by mentioning her father's name in full form as Umashanker Gautam. However, the petitioner is required to deposit as cost Rs.10,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur and Rs.10,000/- with the Regional Director, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Ajmer."

This Court finds that in the present facts of the case there

has been no intention of the petitioner to mislead the Authorities

(7 of 7) [CW-13335/2020]

or to derive any benefit by changing of surname and as such,

prayer of the petitioner needs to be accepted for change of his

surname.

This Court further finds that in the present facts of the case,

the surname of parents of the petitioner has also been reflected as

'Sharma' instead of 'Palod' in other documents and same can be

inferred on the documents filed on their Aadhar Card and Pan

Card, annexed with the writ petition.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and the