Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.01 10:58:22 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:19151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2069 of 2025 Vedika Agrawal D/o Satish Agrawal Aged About 24 Years R/o Ramdev Mandir Ke Pass, Gwali Para, Durg, District Durg, C.G. versus ... Petitioner 1 - Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Through Its Secretary, Head Quarters, Shiksha Kendra-2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar Delhi, District New Delhi, Delhi. 2 - The Controller of Examinations Central Board of Secondary Education Head Quarters, Shiksha Kendra-2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar Delhi, District New Delhi, Delhi. 3 - Regional Officer, Zone Office, Bhubaneshwar Plot No. 4 (Pt.) Sailshree Vihar, Chadrashekharpur, Bhubaneshwar, District Khordha, Odisha 4 - Assistant Secretary, Zone Office, Bhubaneshwar Plot No. 4 (Pt.) Sailshree Vihar, Chadrashekharpur, Bhubaneshwar, District Khordha, Odisha 5 - Delhi Public School, Through Its Principal, Junwani, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 28.04.2025 Order on Board 1 Heard Ms. Santoshi Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for correction of name of the petitioner from Vedika Satish Agrawal to Vedika Agrawal in the mark-sheet of Class-X as well as Class-XII issued by respondents No.1 to 4, with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1 to 4 as to correct the name of the petitioner in the mark sheet of class 10th and 12th in which the name of the petitioner is mentioned as Vedika Satish Agrawal, the same should be corrected as Vedika Agrawal and issue her immediately. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the Class-X as well as Class-XII examination 3 conducted by the respondents No. 1 to 4, through the respondent No. 5 institution. He submits that petitioner wants to correct her name in the mark-sheet issued by the respondents No.1 to 4 of Class-X and Class-XII for which, initially, she submitted an application/representation before the respondent No.5 on 11.04.2025 and after consulting with respondent No.3, respondent No.5 informed the petitioner that the correction in the mark-sheet had been refused by the CBSE on the ground that the period of 5 years has been expired from the date of issuance of the mark- sheet. She has placed reliance in the matter of Jigya Yadav (minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535 to contend that if the minor mistake made by the concerned Department, then it should be required to be corrected. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not approached the respondent No.3 by way of submitting a representation. He, however, submits that the case of the petitioner be considered and decided by the respondent authorities within a specific time frame. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
Decision
documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 In the matter of Jigya Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there are minor mistakes made by the concerned Department, then it should be required to be corrected. Paras-159 4 to 166 and 170 are relevant for the purpose, which are reproduced herein-below for easy reference:- “159. At the outset, we note that there are certain characteristics of changes that students usually apply for being recorded in their certificates. Change of name of the student/father/mother, correction in name of the student/father/mother and correction in date of birth are the primary ones. All these changes cannot be weighed with the same scale. Even in the Bye-laws, all these changes are not subjected to the same set of restrictions/conditions and different changes are circumscribed by different conditions. 160. The conditions regarding “correction” in name or date of birth are not as stringent as conditions applicable to change thereof. For correction in name, the 2018 Byelaws provide for a limitation period of five years and permit such corrections that can be characterized as typographical, factual or spelling mistake in comparison with school records. Understandably, a correction would mean retention of the original record with slight modification to make it consistent with the school records. This requirement of modification could be born out of various reasons, namely typographical mistake at the time of publishing, spelling error or factual error i.e., an error of fact as it existed at the time when the certificate was published. 5 Thus, correction in name is done to bring unanimity between the school records (as they existed at the time of sending information to the Board) and CBSE certificates. However, if school records are altered afterwards and Board is called upon to alter its certificates in light of the updated school records, the same cannot be termed as correction per se but would be in the nature of recording change. Therefore, substantially deviating from a “correction”, the Byelaws provide for an option to “change” the name, which is subject to different conditions. 161. Similar provision is available for “correction” in date of birth, either on the basis of school records or on the basis of order of court. The word “change” is not used for date of birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of birth and there can only be a correction to make it consistent with school record or order of Court. It cannot be changed to replace the former with a fresh date of one’s choice. Be it noted, provisions relating to correction in date of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections. The restriction regarding limitation period shall be examined later, along with other provisions. 162. The provision for “change” of name is far more stringent and calls for a thorough review to settle the correct position. As per the 6 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 coexist 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. 163. Notably, the cases before us pertain to different periods. As aforesaid, the CBSE bye-laws which existed prior to 2007 were different. The summary of the journey of the examination bye-laws 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 7 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 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 recognizing 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. 164. Suffice it to observe that frequent amendments in the Bye-laws have been made providing for different dispensations for the relevant period. For the nature of final 8 directions that we propose to issue, it may not be necessary to dilate on the validity of the concerned Bye-law as amended from time to time. Broadly, it can be noted that the Bye- law recognizes two different dispensations. First is to carry out modifications in the original certificate on request for making it consistent with the school records of the incumbent. The second is to incorporate particulars in the original certificate which are different from the school records. 165. Indisputably, the candidate would pursue further education and explore future career opportunities on the basis of school records including the CBSE Board. The CBSE maintains its official records in respect of candidate on the basis of foundational documents being the school records. Therefore, the CBSE is obliged to carry out all necessary corrections to ensure that CBSE certificate is consistent with the relevant information furnished in the school records as it existed at the relevant time and future changes thereto including after the publication of results by the CBSE. However, when it comes to recording any information in the original certificate issued by the CBSE which is not consistent with the school records, it is essential that the CBSE must insist for supporting public document which has presumptive value and in the given case declaration by a Court of law to incorporate 9 such a change. In that regard, the CBSE can insist for additional conditions to reassure itself and safeguard its interest against any claim by a third party/body because of changes incorporated by it pursuant to application made by the candidate. 166. In the concluding paragraph, we intend to issue directions to the CBSE Board in light of the discussion in this judgment. For the nature of uniform directions that we propose to issue so as to obviate any inconsistent approach in the cases under consideration including future cases to be dealt with by the CBSE Board, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the question of validity of the respective amendments in the relevant Bye- laws effected from time to time. *** *** *** *** *** *** 170. There is no difficulty in correcting CBSE record to bring it in conformity with the school record. The difficulty arises when a statutory document is not consistent with the school record. As observed earlier, the version supported by statutory documents could be reckoned for the purpose of correction in CBSE certificate to make it consistent with public documents.” 7 In the instant case, name of the petitioner has been recorded in all her testimonials as “Vedika Agrawal”, however, in the mark-sheets 10 of Class-X and Class-XII, her name was recorded as “Vedika Satish Agrawal” and the petitioner seeks that it should be corrected as “Vedika Agrawal”. 8 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for the respective parties, nature of grievance raised and the relief(s) sought as also considering the facts of the present case in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jigya Yadav (supra), instead of keeping this writ petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, directing the petitioner to file relevant documents along with appropriate application before the respondent No.5 i.e., Delhi Public School, through Its Principal, Junwani, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.), and in turn, the concerned Principal is directed to consider the application so filed by the petitioner and forwarded the same to the respondent No.3 for appropriate orders. 9 With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition is disposed of. Yogesh Sd Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge