Delhi High Court
Abhishek Kumar @ Bal Kishan vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 July, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 3rd July, 2014
W.P.(C) 3266/2014
ABHISHEK KUMAR @ BAL KISHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Narang, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Adv. for R-2&3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
C.M.No.6745/2014(exemptions).
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. The CM stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3266/2014.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
i) impugns Rule 69.1 of the Examination Bye-Laws of the respondents
no.2&3 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), on the ground of the
same being illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India; ii) seeks
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 1 of 9
quashing of the order dated 12th February, 2014 of the respondent CBSE
rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of his name in the records
of the respondent CBSE; and, iii) seeks a mandamus to the respondent
CBSE to change the name of the petitioner in its records as well as in the
certificates of Class X and Class XII issued to the petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner:-
(a) that the petitioner, born on 18th January, 1970, was named Bal
Kishan by his parents;
(b) that the petitioner passed the Class X and Class XII
examinations conducted by the respondent CBSE in the years
1988 and 1990 respectively;
(c) that the petitioner, throughout his school and college education,
was teased by the other students about his name;
(d) that the petitioner decided to change his name from Bal Kishan
to Abhishek Kumar and his name was so mentioned in the
invitation card of his wedding held on 2nd December, 1999;
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 2 of 9
(e) that the petitioner, on 15th May, 2008, also published in
newspaper The Statesman of having so changed his name "for
all future purposes";
(f) upon being advised that for changing the name he was required
to publish a Notification to the said effect in the Gazette
published by the Government of India, the petitioner, after
declaring so by way of another insertion in the newspaper The
Sunday Express of 18th December, 2010, got published in the
Gazette of India of January 1-January 7, 2011 as under:-
"I, hitherto known as BAL KISHAN son of Late
M.R. SINGH, residing at G-12/8, Gali No.4, Braham
Puri, Delhi - 110 053, have changed my name and
shall hereafter be known as ABHISHEK KUMAR.
It is certified that I have complied with other legal
requirements in this connection.
BAL KISHAN
[Signature (in existing old name)]"
(g) that the petitioner, on 5th December, 2013 approached the Delhi
Government Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi Disputes
Resolution Society (Regd.) for a direction to the respondent
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 3 of 9
CBSE to change his name and the respondent CBSE on 9th
January, 2014 before the said Society agreed that upon the
petitioner applying for change of name, the respondent CBSE
shall consider the same sympathetically; and,
(h) that though the petitioner so applied for change of name but the
respondent CBSE vide its order dated 12th February, 2014 supra
refused to so change the name of the petitioner in its record and
in the certificates of Class X and Class XII issued to the
petitioner, for the reason of the same being permissible only
within ten years of issuance of such certificate and the
petitioner having applied for change of name on 20th January,
2014 i.e. after more than ten years of 22nd August, 1988 when
the first certificate of Class X was issued to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner contends that Rule 69.1 supra which prohibits the
petitioner from applying for change of name after ten years from the
issuance of certificate, is violative of the Constitutional mandate ensuring
each citizen liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, equality of
status and opportunity and imposes fetters on such freedom of the petitioner.
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 4 of 9
6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
7. We have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that
since the petitioner, as per Gazette dated January 1-January 7, 2011 also,
changed his name from Bal Kishan to Abhishek Kumar „with effect from the
date of the said publication‟, as is evident from use of the words "hitherto"
and "shall hereafter be known as" therein, how was the petitioner entitled to
have his name changed in the certificates issued by the respondent CBSE
prior thereto. As per the said Gazette Notification, the petitioner till the date
of publication thereof on January 1-January 7, 2011, was known as Bal
Kishan and was to be thereafter only known as Abhishek Kumar. We further
enquired that when the petitioner, till January 1-January 7, 2011 was known
as Bal Kishan, how could his name be shown as Abhishek Kumar in the
certificates issued in the years 1988 and 1990.
8. The counsel for the petitioner instead of answering the said question
has contended that the respondent CBSE having agreed before the
Conciliation Centre to entertain the application of the petitioner for change
of name, is not entitled to resile therefrom.
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 5 of 9
9. As far as the aforesaid argument of the counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, the same has to be noted to be rejected. Without going into the
sanctity of the Settlement Agreement signed before the Conciliation Centre,
the said Settlement Agreement also merely provided that the application if
made by the petitioner for change of name shall be considered
sympathetically by the respondent CBSE. It is not as if the respondent CBSE
has not abided by the Settlement Agreement. It, though has considered the
application for change of name of the petitioner, but has rejected the same
citing the rules of its Examination Bye-Laws. The Settlement Agreement
nowhere records that the respondent CBSE had agreed to change the name
of the petitioner as sought by the petitioner.
10. Else, we are of the opinion that the issuance of revised certificates
with changed name as sought by the petitioner would create a discrepancy
and reflect a status which did not exist at the time of issuance thereof. The
petitioner though has changed his name, but after the date of issuance of the
said certificates. Axiomatically the certificates cannot bear the changed
name. If anyone were to make a deeper inquiry, they will wonder that if the
name was changed only in 2011, how the changed name appears on
certificates issued on a prior date. Rather the procedure of having a Gazette
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 6 of 9
Notification for changed name is intended to obviate the said difficulties and
to give sanctity to the change in name. The said view was taken by one of us
(Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.) in Pallavi @ Pallavi Chandra Vs. C.B.S.E.
MANU/DE/2842/2010 and in order dated 9th November, 2010 in W.P.(C)
No.4044/2010 titled Ashik Gurung Vs. CBSE and which matters are not
found to have been agitated further. We see no reason to take a different
view.
11. Though in view of above there is no need to deal with the challenge
made to Rule 69.1 supra on the ground of imposing the limitation of ten
years for applying for change of name, we may record that the Division
Bench of this Court in Jigya Yadav Vs. C.B.S.E. MANU/DE/3700/2010
faced with the same challenge though on facts also held that there was no
need to deal with the challenge of the Constitutional validity on the ground
of time provided for applying for such change of ten years being arbitrary
nevertheless held Rule 69.1 to be reasonable and held that the Court has to
be reluctant to substitute its own views in such matters in preference to those
formulated by professionals having experience of dealing with working of
educational institutions. We however further find SLP CC No.7348/2011 to
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 7 of 9
have been preferred against the said judgment to have been granted on
02.05.2011 and the matter to be still pending in the Supreme Court.
12. Mention may also be made of Rule 69.2 of the said Examination Bye-
Laws which similarly imposes a time of two years for applying for
corrections of date of birth in the records of and certificates issued by the
CBSE. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwat Dayal Vs. CBSE 180
(2011) DLT 1 in relation thereto held that beyond two years correction could
not be made. The same view was reiterated by another Division Bench of
this Court in the order dated 27th May, 2011 in LPA No.496/2011 titled
Mukul Singal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education arising from a
detailed judgment dated 29th March, 2011 in W.P.(C) No.8546/2008. The
appeal thereagainst being SLP CC No.14782/2012 was dismissed in limine
on 10th September, 2012. The same view was reiterated in Chirag Jain Vs.
CBSE MANU/DE/2386/2011; LPA No.697/2011 preferred thereagainst was
dismissed on 29th August, 2011 and SLP CC No.16919/2013 preferred
whereagainst also was dismissed in limine on 30th September, 2013.
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 8 of 9
13. We therefore do not find any merit in the petition which is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 03, 2014 pp..
WP(C) 3266/2014 Page 9 of 9