Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Andolan Chetri Patweth vs . Central Board Of Secondary on 25 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MEG 111
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
1
Serial No. 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 158 of 2019
Date of Decision: 25.07.2019
Shri. Andolan Chetri Patweth Vs. Central Board of Secondary
Education & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Borah, Adv. for R 1-3.
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: No
ORAL
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Board of Secondary Education Board (CBSE) authorities rejecting the petitioner's representation for change of his surname in his Class-X and Class-XII school records, even though as per the petitioner, the same is permissible as per circular No. CBSE/Coord/AS(C)/112576 dated 10.11.2017, which provides that the revised time limit for change of name is 5(five) years from the date of declaration of result and will be applicable to all the students who have cleared their Class-X or Class-XII examination in the year 2015. The impugned letter having denied the prayer of the writ petitioner as such, he has approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition.
2. Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was born out of a legal marriage between a Non- Khasi father and a Khasi (Pnar) mother and the social customs of inheritance and succession is governed by the Khasi Hills Autonomous 2 District (Khasi Social Custom of lineage) Act, 1997 which recognizes Khasi matrilineal system of lineage. He further submits that the petitioner can speak the local language and has not renounced the status of a schedule tribe at any point of time nor has adopted the personal law of his father not compatible with Khasi personal laws and customs. He submits that in the birth certificate of the petitioner, the surname of his mother which is 'Patweth' is recorded as his surname. As such, he submits that the change of his surname to his mother's surname is in consonance with the practice of the society, which however was denied by the CBSE respondents. He therefore, prays that a mandamus be issued to direct the authorities to allow the change of name as prayed for.
3. Ms. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-3 submits that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is by the operation of the Examination Bye-Law of the CBSE. She submits that as per the amended rule i.e. 69.1 (i) of the Examination Bye-Law relating to correction/change of names which is applicable to the present case, the said Bye-Law provides that an application regarding change of name or surname of the candidate may be considered provided that changes have been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate. As such, she submits that the application therefore, being barred by the Bye-Law, the same has not been considered and was accordingly rejected.
4. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, considered the same as also the materials on record.
5. The only point that emerges for consideration in this present case is whether the prayer of the petitioner has been arbitrarily rejected or whether the same is expressly barred by the operation of Bye-Law 69.1 (i) as amended on 01.02.2018. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner is the son of parents of whom the father is a non-tribal and the mother is tribal, and that the petitioner is governed by the matrilineal system. In this context, it would be quite natural therefore that a child out of such wedlock should 3 also carry the name of his clan, which is the surname of the mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced two judgments before this Court which have some persuasive value in deciding the instant case in view of the similarly situated facts and circumstances.
6. Before coming to the judgments, it would be apposite to render to the Bye-Law which is quoted herein below:
"69.1 (i) (Change in Candidate Name, Mother Name & Father Name) Applications regarding changes in name or surname of candidates may be considered provided the changes have been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate."
On perusal of the amended Bye-Law, it no doubt reflects that the changes to be considered would necessarily have to be admitted by a Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate.
7. In the instant case, on perusal of the impugned letter dated 02.01.2019, it is recorded that the rejection of the petitioner's petition is in view of the fact that the "aforementioned desired correction in candidate's name is not supported with the school documents submitted." The rejection therefore, it seems was based on the fact that according to the respondents, the request for change was not supported by school documents which had been submitted. On perusal of the application for change of name, which is annexed at Annexure-5 of the writ petition, it is seen that in the application itself, an affidavit, registration card and other required documents from the concerned authority were enclosed. The said letters of rejection were however sent to the Principal of the respective school and the same had been forwarded from their offices to the petitioner.
8. Coming to the decisions as rendered i.e. in the case of Amanat Kaur Cheema v. State of Punjab & Ors, which was decided in Civil Writ Petition No. 8720 of 2016, the Punjab-Haryana High Court by its judgment dated 20.10.2016 held that "the Bye-law requires the applicant to submit an 4 order from a Court of law and notification in a Government Gazette before change in the record of CBSE can be allowed. In my view, the requirement to submit an order from a Court of law permitting change in the name is wholly unjustified and in fact impossible to comply since a Court of law does not intervene in a matter of change of name, unless someone questions such change of name."
The judgment thus while granting the relief read down the requirement as set out in the Bye-Law 69.1 of Examination Bye-Law, though it is the earlier un-amended provision but in substance has remained the same even after amendment. Another decision which would be helpful in the adjudication of the instant matter is the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court-Jodhpur in the case of Akshaya Murali v. Central Board of Secondary, in Civil Writ No. 15754 of 2018 rendered on 14.01.2019, wherein at Para 10 it has been held that, "In the considered opinion of this Court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to seek the declaration for the change of the names of her parents. Obviously, the variance in the names of the petitioner's parents in the Mark Sheet and Certificate of passing of Class-X Examination and Class-XII Examination may create difficulties for the petitioner in her further studies and employment. Thus, in the interest of justice, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the CBSE to effect the changes in the names of the petitioner's parents as prayed for, in conformity with the corrected Mark Sheet and Certificates already issued by CISCE."
9. The analogy that can be drawn from the two judgments would clearly show that the requirement as prescribed in the said Bye-Law has been considered too stringent and difficult to comply with, especially when the subject matter concerns only the change of name. In the instant case, the rejection is strictly not based on the interpretation or application of the Bye- Law, inasmuch as, it is on the ground that adequate documentation had not been provided.
510. In the circumstances therefore it would be in the interest of justice to direct the respondent authorities to cause the name of the petitioner to be corrected as prayed for on the basis of the documents which have been enclosed and filed along with the application dated 29.11.2018.
11. With the abovenoted directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Judge Meghalaya 25.07.2019 "D. Nary, PS"