The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2436 of 2024 Anushree Mishra, daughter of Rajni Kant Mishra, aged about 27 years, resident of -B4 LIC Officers Staff Colony, Rohraband, P.O. and P.S. Sindri, District-Dhanbad …… Versus Petitioner 1. The Union of India through its Secretary School Education and Literacy Department, New Delhi 2. The Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairperson, New Delhi 3. The Principal, Dev Sangha National School, Deoghar 4. Rani Mishra aged 44 years, resident of B4 LIC Officers Staff Colony, Rohraband, P.O. and P.S. Sindri, District-Dhanbad 5. The Regional Officer, CBSE, Patna …… Respondents ---------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the UOI For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 5: Mr. Sushant Kumar, J.C. to A.G. Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C. 05/Dated: 30/07/2024 ……… I.A. No. 6509 of 2024 has been filed for adding the name of the mother of the petitioner as respondent no. 4 and the name of the mother of the petitioner is disclosed in para 4 of the said I.A. 2. Learned counsels for the Union of India and respondent nos. 2 and 5 have got no objection. 3. 4. In view of above the prayer made in I.A is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall array the name of the mother of the petitioner and Regional Officer, CBSE as proforma respondent nos.4 and 5 respectively in course of day. 5. Heard Mr. Kaustav Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Sushant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 5. 6. Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the respondent-CBSE whereby the request of the petitioner seeking a correction in her name as well as her mother’s name in her Class-X Marksheet-cum-Certificate has been rejected. Further prayer is made for direction to incorporate the correct name of the petitioner as well as the mother of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a student at the Dev Sangha National School, Deogarh from where she appeared for her Class X Examinations in the year 2012 and due to inadvertence/mistake the name of the petitioner was mentioned as "Anushree" instead of "Anushree Mishra" and the name of her mother was incorrectly mentioned as "Shivani" instead of "Rani Mishra". He further submits that petitioner had sworn an affidavit dated 02.11.2023 seeking correction of her name from "Anushree" to "Anushree Mishra", as well as the name of her mother as “Rani Mishra” in place of "Shivani". He further refers to Annexure-2 and submits that in the Voter Id Card and Aadhar Card the name of the petitioner is reflected as Anushree Mishra” and mother’s name is shown as Rani Mishra. He further submits that the petitioner had wrote to the Principal of Dev Sangha National School, Deogarh on 06.11.2023 seeking correction of her name from "Anushree" to "Anushree Mishra" in her Class X Marksheet cum Certificate as well as correction of her mother's name from "Shivani" to "Rani Mishra". He submits that the change of her name from "Anushree" to "Anushree Mishra" was published by way of Gazette Notification on 12.11.2022. He then submits that that the Principal of the Dev Sangha National School, Deogarh vide his letter dated 13.12.2023 had written to the CBSE Board seeking change in the name of the Petitioner as well as her mother's name in her Class X marksheet cum Certificate however C.B.S.E vide letter dated 05.02.2024 rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that order is required from the Court. He submits that the case of the petitioner is covered in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021) 7 SCC 535. He refers to para 194.1 and 194.2 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:- “194.1. Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing public notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten). 194.2. However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.” 8. Relying on the above judgement he submits that change of name of the petitioner, para 194.1 is applying and so far change of name of mother of the petitioner is concerned para 194.2 of the aforesaid judgment is applying. On these grounds, he submits that appropriate direction may be issued. 9. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the matter is required to be looked into by the CBSE. 10. Learned counsel for the CBSE submits that the petitioner may approach the respondent no.5 by way of filing fresh representation along with relevant documents who will pass the appropriate order. 11. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that dispute is there with regard to change the name of petitioner as well as the name of the mother of the petitioner. The Principal of the said school has recommended to change the name of petitioner as well as the name of the mother of the petitioner, however, C.B.S.E rejected the same on the ground that order from the competent court is required. The Voter ID Card and Aadhar Card on the record the name of the petitioner is shown as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is covered in the light of Jigya Yadav (supra). 12. In view of above facts, order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the respondent-CBSE is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.5. 13. The petitioner will approach the respondent no.5 by way of filing fresh representation along with relevant documents and the respondent no.5 is directed to process the application of the petitioner to change the name of the petitioner and her mother in Class-X Marksheet-cum-Certificate as the case may be. 14. of. Satyarthi/
Decision
This writ petition is disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)