Madhya Pradesh High Court
Archit Pratap Singh Kushwah Minor Thr ... vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 13 July, 2017
1 WP.92/2016
Archit Pratap Singh Kushwah
Vs.
Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
13/07/2017
Shri Abhishek Prashar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1
& 2.
None for the respondent No.3 though served.
With the consent of parties, finally heard.
The present petition has been preferred at the instance of a student through his natural guardian / father wherein peculiar situation has been faced by the petitioner wherein his name has been allegedly changed in the record of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and his efforts to get it corrected went into vain as reflected in the order date 14.10.2015.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a student of Class-X in Vidya Bhawan School, Kavi Nagar, Airport Road, Gwalior and he appeared in Class-X examination in the year 2014-15. For appearance in the examination, necessary formalities including filling up of form for Class-X examination also entails inclusion of description like name, father's name and other particulars and as per submissions, the student has written his name in the Examination form as Archit Pratap Singh Kushwah. The admission forms and transfer certificate reflect the said name. Similarly his father's name is Shailesh Singh Kushwah. However, due to some inadvertence the name reflected in the marksheet of Class-X issued by CBSE as Archit P. Singh and his father as Shailesh S. Kushwah. Therefore, he moved an application through school to CBSE for correction of the names which got turned down. Thus, instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for correction of names for posterity and for record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name as reflected in admission form, transfer certificate and other 2 WP.92/2016 documents including marksheet issued by the school for different classes as well as Adhar Card and Identity Card display the name of the petitioner as Archit Pratap Singh Kushwah S/o Shailesh Signgh Kushwah but the abbreviated name reflected in the migration certificate is the bone of contention and therefore he seeks correction of the names of himself and his father. Respondents have not considered the notification dated 25.06.2015 issued by the CBSE in true perspective and has caused arbitrariness in passing the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the respondent - Board submits that the petitioner himself has verified the name as Archit P Singh when the Board had sent the document for verification to the school and it appears that school has not taken care of said omission or abbreviated names and petitioner himself could not point out the said omission at the relevant point of time. Therefore, migration certificate and other documents of the Board reflect his name as Archit P Singh S/O Shailesh S Kushwah on the basis of list of candidates provided by the school. He further submits that as per Rule 69.1(i) the application has to be treated as per procedure provided in the said rule.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended to the petition.
From perusal of the record submitted by the petitioner, it appears that name of the petitioner in admission and transfer certificate issued by the school is Archit Pratap Singh Kushwah. Similarly, Adhar Card of petitioner and his father, identity card, various marksheets of different classes and other documents appended thereto reflect that petitioner is known by Archit Pratap Singh Kushwah since inception and he wants himself to be known with this name. Similarly, Adhar Card of his father reflects the name as Shailesh Singh Kushwah. Therefore to avoid anomaly in future, it is imperative for the petitioner to reconcile the entries in correct perspective. Therefore, attempt of the petitioner to correct his name is bonafide. Notification dated 25.06.2015 regarding 3 WP.92/2016 amendment in examination by-laws also suggests that case of the petitioner falls under rule 69.1(ii) wherein petitioner wants to correct his name to the extent in spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the candidate's name as well as name of his father. Therefore, if any affidavit given by the petitioner or his father for correction of name in the marksheet has to be seen in that perspective only and therefore, the case of the petitioner would fall specifically under 69.1(ii) and has to be treated in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said rule.
Resultantly, petition is allowed to the extent that petitioner is directed to complete the formalities in accordance with Rule 69.1(ii) with the school authorities. It is further directed to the school authorities to forward the case of the petitioner as per procedure prescribed in the rules to the CBSE as expeditiously as possible preferably within three weeks from the date of submission of application so that Board can act upon the said application regarding change of name as per application.
Looking to the nature of controversy, it is expected from the Board that it would resolve the issue as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months so that future of the petitioner may not be jeopardized. Respondents would cooperate and work in tandem.
Resultatly, impugned order dated 14.10.2015 is set aside and petition is allowed in above terms.
No cost.
(Anand Pathak) Judge sarathe