QUDSIYA vs CBSE & ANR.
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 221/2024
QUDSIYA …. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aleena, Mr. Irfan Firdous, Mr. Suraj and Mr. Kashish Rizvi, Advs.
versus
CBSE & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar and Ms. Chhavi Arora, Advs. for R-1/CBSE
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
% 16.01.2024
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar, at the very outset, points out that he is nominated Counsel, and not Standing Counsel, for the CBSE.
2. The order passed by this Court on 10 January 2024 shall stand corrected accordingly.
3. The petitioner was a student of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gole Market (KVS hereinafter).
4. The name of the petitioners father is Mohd. Sualeheen. This name was correctly reflected in the Class X certificate issued to the petitioner by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
5. The petitioner has also placed on record various official documents, including her Aadhar Card, which also reflects the name of her father as Mohd. Sualeheen.
6. The class X Certificate dated 3 June 2017 issued to the petitioner by the CBSE correctly reflected the name of her father as Mohd. Sualeheen. However, thereafter, there has been an error in the spelling of the name of the petitioners father in the records of both the CBSE and the KVS. The Migration Certificate dated 30 April 2019, issued by the CBSE, as well as the subsequent Provisional and Character Certificate issued by the KVS, reflected the name of the petitioners father as Mohd. Sauleheen, instead of Mohd. Sualeheen.
7. This error continued to be reflected in the Class XII certificate dated 2 May 2019 issued by the CBSE consequent to the All-India Senior School Certificate Examination 2019 undertaken by the petitioner, In which, too, her fathers name is reflected as Mohd. Sauleheen.
8. The petitioner addressed representations to the KVS and the CBSE, requesting that the name of her father be corrected in the records of the school as well as of the CBSE. As these representations did not elicit any favourable response, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.
9. Mr. Rajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the KVS, submits that, in the records of the KVS, the name of the petitioners father has been corrected to Mohd. Sualeheen and that the KVS has also communicated to the CBSE on 9 February 2022, requesting the CBSE to effect the said correction in the CBSE certificate as well.
10. The legal position with respect to the right of a candidate to have the name of her father corrected is no longer res integra. The last word on the subject, at least till now, has been spoken by the Supreme Court through the bench of three Honble Judges in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE1.
11. In that case, the CBSE had sought to contend that the right of the appellant Jigya Yadav (Jigya hereinafter), to have the name of her parents corrected on the basis of examination bye-laws of the CBSE. The Supreme Court, significantly, identified the issue arising for consideration thus, in para 2 of the judgment:
2. The seminal issue in these cases is : whether an individual’s control over such cardinal element of identity could be denied to him/her by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE or Board, as the case may be) on the specious ground that its Examination Bye-laws of 2007 (the Bye-laws) must prevail over the claim of the candidate, which are merely intended to regulate such a claim and to delineate the procedure for correction/change in the contents of certificate(s) issued by it including regarding maintenance of its office records?
12. The Supreme Court was, in Jigya Yadav, dealing with a batch of appeals.
13. Civil Appeal 3905/2011 was the appeal filed by Jigya. The order under challenge in that case had been passed by this Court on 20 December 2010 in WP (C) 3774/2010 (Jigya Yadav v. CBSE2).
14. Jigyas case was that the names of her parents had been incorrectly recorded in the mark-sheet issued by the CBSE as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav instead of Hari Singh and Mamta. To support her case, Jigya relied on the identity documents of her parents, which had been placed on record.
15. The CBSE rejected Jigyas application for correction of the names of her parents in the marksheets issued by it on the ground that the school records had not been corrected and that Bye-Laws 69.1 of the CBSE examination Bye Laws did not permit correction of the CBSE mark-sheet until the school record was corrected in the first place.
16. This stand of the CBSE was accepted by this Court, which, accordingly, dismissed Jigyas writ petition. For this purpose, this Court relied on the nursery application form, school admission form and Class XI stream allotment form which had been filed by Jigyas parents, and in which their names had been entered as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav.
17. In these circumstances, the CBSE contended that Jigya was not entitled to relief though, in her birth certificate, the names of her parents had been entered as Hari Singh and Mamta respectively.
18. It was noted that Bye-Law 69.1 allowed the CBSE only to effect corrections to bring the record up to date and in line with the school record. Jigya, therefore, assailed Bye Law 69.1 itself as being unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was sought to be contended that the Bye Law did not address the possibility of an error occurring in the school record itself.
19. The discussion on merits by the Supreme Court commences from para 106 of the report, in which it was observed: The real question is: whether bye-laws so framed have the force of law?. The Supreme Court thereafter went to examine what constituted law as envisaged by Article 13 of the Constitution of India.
20. In para 118 of the report, the Supreme Court held that the bye-laws of the CBSE did have the force of law.
21. Thereafter, however, the Supreme Court examined whether the bye-laws were constitutional or unconstitutional. The question, as framed in para 123 of the report, was whether bye-laws under consideration impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
22. Paras 129, 131 and 134 to 140, 142 to 144 and 150 and 151 of the decision addressed this issue and read thus:
129. Going by the very nature of rights under Article 19, the right to get changed name recorded in the official (public) records cannot be an absolute right and as a matter of public policy and larger public interest calls for certain reasonable restrictions to observe consistency and obviate confusion and deceptive attempt.
*****
131. The test of reasonableness requires that the impugned law is intelligently crafted in such a manner that it is able to justify the ultimate impact of the law on its subjects. If it restricts, it must restrict on the basis of reason and if it permits, it must permit on the basis of reason. Similarly, if a law draws a classification, it must classify intelligently i.e. backed by reason. Reason is the foundation of all laws and their validity is immensely dependent on the availability of sound reason. Equally crucial is the availability of a legitimate object. It is important to note that reasonableness is adjudged in the specific context of the case and is not confined to the words of a definition.
*****
134. As noted above, the Bye-laws permit change of name only if permission from the Court has been obtained prior to the publication of result. It puts a clear embargo on any change of name sans prior permission before the publication. The provision is problematic on certain counts. Firstly, it is not a mere restriction on the right, it is a complete embargo on the right post publication of result of the candidate. It fails to take into account the possibility of need for change of name after the publication of result including the uncertainty of timeline required to obtain such declaration from the court of law due to law’s delay and upon which the candidate has no control whatsoever. Whereas, while amending the Bye-laws in 2007, the CBSE itself had noted that children are not of mature age while passing school examinations and they may not be in a position to decide conclusively on issues concerning their identity. The Bye-laws completely overlook this possibility when it ordains seeking declaration from the court prior to the publication of results of the examination concerned conducted by it.
135. The overriding State interest, as per the Board, to retain this stringency is nothing but efficiency of administration. Administrative efficiency, despite being a crucial concern, has not been and cannot be elevated to a standard that it is used to justify non-performance of essential functions by an instrumentality of the State. To use administrative efficiency to make it practically impossible for a student to alter her identity in the Board certificates, no matter how urgent and important it is, would be highly disproportionate and can in no manner be termed as a reasonable restriction. Reasonableness would demand a proper balance between a student’s right to be identified in the official (public) records in manner of her choice and the Board’s argument of administrative efficiency. To sustain this balance, it would be open to the Board to limit the number of times such alterations could be permitted including subject to availability of the old records preserved by it as per the extant regulations. But to say that post the publication of examination results and issuance of certificates, there can be no way to alter the record would be a case of total prohibition and not a reasonable restraint.
136. The limitation as regards maximum period up to which changes can be permitted also requires a different approach. Upon receiving the certificates, the student would naturally be put to notice of the particulars of certificates. Due to young age and inadvertence including being casual and indolent, a student may fail to identify the errors or to understand the probable impact of those errors and accordingly, may not apply for rectification immediately. It is also possible that a student may not have to use the certificates immediately after passing out and by the time she uses them, the limitation period for correction may elapse. Therefore, a realistic time for permitting corrections is very important. Indeed, it can be commensurate with the statutory or mandatory period up to which CBSE is obliged to preserve its old record.
137. However, we need not explore upon the question as to whether the exercise of a fundamental right can be foreclosed by prescribing a rigid period of limitation. In case of any ordinary civil rights, it is important that the action for enforcement of such rights is initiated in prescribed time and consistency is maintained, but is it permissible to say the same about fundamental rights? The rights which are recognised as fundamental under the Constitution are preferred or chosen freedoms and a very sensitive and realistic approach has to be taken in such matters. We wonder whether after the lapse of prescribed time, let us say 3 years, there could be no reasonable and legitimate circumstances to warrant change of name.
138. At the same time, there is merit in CBSE’s argument that frequent changes cannot be permitted as there is scope of abuse and misuse, apart from administrative burden. This argument cannot be lightly brushed aside. We deem it fit to observe that same concerns could apply to other bodies as well, like Unique Identification Authority of India UIDAI and Passport Authority.
139. As regards the argument of misuse, no doubt, there are instances of misuse of provisions that permit change of identity in criminal matters. However, mere possibility of abuse cannot deter the Board from fulfilling their essential functions. A possibility of abuse cannot be used to deny legitimate rights to citizens. The balance simply does not tilt in favour of such a proposition. The course of law cannot choose to change its stream merely because there are apprehensions of abuse on the way. The Board’s concern is only to regulate and maintain efficient educational standards. It is not a penal authority. If any of the provisions of bye-laws are subjected to misuse or abuse by anyone, the Board would be well within its rights to approach the appropriate body for necessary penal or civil action. As a nodal agency made for a specific public purpose, CBSE can only use its means and resources to put proper safeguards in place while performing its functions. More so, when it is not even the job of the Board to verify anything, as changes are made after grant of permission by a court of law. There is involvement of judicial application of mind. The Board only has to give effect to the court order granting permission, as and when it is so pronounced irrespective of publication of examination results in earlier point of time.
140. Administrative efficiency, we must note, cannot be the sole concern of CBSE. Every institution desires efficiency in their functioning. But it does not mean that efficiency is achieved by curbing their basic functions. Article 9 of CBSE’s Constitution, in Point (xvi), instructively states that CBSE is a body constituted for regulating and maintaining the standard of secondary education. The same is reproduced again for ready reference:
9. The Board shall have the following powers:
***
(xvi) To do all such or other things as may be necessary in order to further the objectives of the Board as a body constituted for regulating and maintaining the standard of secondary education.
(emphasis supplied)
The terms regulation and maintenance are terms of very wide import and signify that the functioning of the Board is not narrowed down in any manner whatsoever. Regulation of standard of education would empower the Board to take all necessary steps, as permissible under the Resolution and Regulations, to control all possible aspects of school education that may have a bearing on its standard. Quality of curriculum, services extended to the students, effective grievance redressal mechanism, oversight over affiliated schools, etc. are some of the essential elements touching upon the standard of education. Maintenance of those standards would demand constant upgradation of rules and services of the Board in tune with changing needs of the students and the ultimate goal of education.
*****
142. The bye-law concerned has been framed on the assumption that there can be no situation wherein a legitimate need for change of name could arise for a student after publication of results. It is presumed that only typographical/factual errors could come in the certificates and they can be corrected using the provision for corrections. The presumption, we must note, is erroneous, absurd and distances itself from the social realities. There can be numerous circumstances wherein change of name could be a legitimate requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of preserving the standard of education in mind, the Board must provide for a reasonable opportunity to effect such changes.
143. It would not be out of place to note that the two parties here the Board and students are not in an equal position of impact. In other words, the balance of convenience would tilt in favour of students. For, they stand to lose more due to inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry is increasing administrative burden. The obligation of Board to take additional administrative burden is no doubt onerous but the propensity of a student losing career opportunities due to inaccurate certificate is unparalleled. Illustratively, a juvenile accused of being in conflict with the law or a victim of sexual abuse whose identity gets compromised due to lapses by media or the investigative body, despite there being complete legal protection for the same, may consider changing the name to seek rehabilitation in the society in exercise of her right to be forgotten. If the Board, in such a case, refuses to change the name, the student would be compelled to live with the scars of the past. We are compelled to wonder how it would not be a grave and sustained violation of fundamental rights of the student. In such circumstances, the avowed public interest in securing rehabilitation of affected persons would overwhelm the Board’s interest in securing administrative efficiency. In fact, it would be against the human dignity of the student, the protection whereof is the highest duty of all concerned. A Board dealing with maintenance of educational standards cannot arrogate to itself the power to impact identity of students who enrol with it. The right to control one’s identity must remain with the individual, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions as observed above and as further discussed later.
144. The utility of certificates issued by the Board is not confined to educational purposes anymore. They serve a social purpose today and are often used to cross verify particulars like name and date of birth while applying for other government identity documents. They assume immense relevance while applying for various jobs, both public and private. Interestingly, CBSE itself has argued at length on the importance and authoritative value of their certificates. In such circumstances, an inaccuracy or denial of change could be fatal to a student’s future prospects and all these concerns cannot be brushed aside in the name of administrative exigencies.
*****
150. No doubt, it is true that CBSE certificates are not strictly meant to be considered as identity documents, however, the same are being relied upon for corroborative purposes in all academic and career related transactions as foundational document. In fact, the CBSE itself has conceded to this fact that their certificates are relied for all official purposes, as noted above. The date of birth in matriculation certificate, in particular, is relied upon as primary evidence of date of birth of a citizen. Therefore, as regards the information contained in a CBSE certificate, the Board must afford opportunity to the students to modify it subject to complying with requisite formalities which are reasonable in nature. If all other State agencies could allow it for the preservance of consistency and accuracy, alongside being enablers in free exercise of rights by the citizens, there is no reason for the CBSE to not uphold that right of the students. More so, it would be in the interest of CBSE’s own credibility that their records are regarded as accurate and latest records of a student worthy of being relied upon for official purposes. Therefore, this approach would serve twin purposes enabling free exercise of rights and preservance of accuracy.
151. We must, however, note that the justiciability of the requested changes can of course be gone into. Every agency has its own method of verification while accepting or rejecting changes in their records. For instance, some agencies use sworn affidavits for carrying out changes, some agencies require prior permission by a court of law. The CBSE itself uses the same mechanism prior permission by court of law and publication in Official Gazette. We may discuss the relevance of prior permission by court in deciding the questions of justiciability and genuineness of requested changes at a later stage.
23. Following the aforesaid discussion, the question before it has been answered, by the Supreme Court, in paras 154 and 155 of the report.
154. In light of the above discussion, we must note that there are no restrictions on the power of CBSE to permit change of name. The Constitution, Resolution and Regulations are functional documents of the Board and none of these documents provide for any such fetters. Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, the Board cannot put fetters on its duties so as to cause grave prejudice to the students with legitimate causes for changing their certificates. The exercise of discretion in this negative manner would be arbitrary and unreasonable, at best.
155. We, thus, hold that the provision regarding change of name post publication of examination results is excessively restrictive and imposes unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 19. We make it clear that the provision for change of name is clearly severable from those for corrections in name/date of birth and therefore, our determination shall not affect them except as regards the condition of limitation period, in terms of the aforesaid discussion and guidelines stated later.
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the provision in the bye-laws which prohibited correction of the name post publication of the examination results was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.
25. The Supreme Court thereafter, went on to examine the validity of the bye-laws.
26. Paras 159 and 160 and 162 to 165 of the report may be reproduced in this regard:
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 Bye-laws provide for a limitation period of five years and permit such corrections that can be characterised 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. 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 Bye-laws provide for an option to change the name, which is subject to different conditions.
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 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 co-exist 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 free will 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 preconditions 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 recognising 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 directions that we propose to issue, it may not be necessary to dilate on the validity of the Bye-law concerned as amended from time to time. Broadly, it can be noted that the Bye-law recognises 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 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.
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Thereafter, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether, de hors the school documents, the CBSE was obliged to effect changes in the name of the candidate or his/her parents in the certificates issued by it on production of public documents by the petitioner. This issue was addressed in paras 167, 168, 170 and 172 of the report, thus:
167. Whether CBSE is obliged to effect changes in the certificates issued by it upon production of updated public documents (other than school records), is the next issue for consideration. According to the Board, it would not be permissible as it has no independent mechanism to verify the genuineness of the public documents. Even under the Bye-laws, there is no requirement for the Board to verify the genuineness of the documents. It is simply not the job of the Board.
168. The bye-laws provide for a two-tier mechanism for recording change of name or other details (as indicated above). One of them is prior permission or declaration by a court of law to be obtained. As regards public documents like birth certificate, Official Gazette, Aadhaar card, election card, etc. the same enjoy legal presumption of its correctness in terms of explicit provisions contained in Chapter V of the 1872 Act. The 1872 Act extends such presumption in terms of Section 76 read with Sections 79 and 80 of the 1872 Act and as in the case of Official Gazette under Section 81 of the same Act. Even other legislations concerning public documents attach equal importance to the authenticity of such documents including while making changes in their certificates to which we have alluded to in this judgment. Understood thus, there is no reason for the CBSE Board to not take notice of the public documents relied upon by the candidate and to record change on that basis in the certificate issued by it, for being consistent with the relied upon public documents. It matters not if the information furnished in the public documents is not entirely consistent with the school records of the incumbent. The CBSE while accepting those documents as foundational documents for effecting changes consistent therewith may insist for additional conditions and at the same time while retaining the original entry make note in the form of caption/annotation in the fresh certificate to be issued by it while calling upon the incumbent to surrender the original certificate issued by it to avoid any misuse thereof at a later point of time. It would be permissible for the CBSE to insist for a sworn affidavit to be given by the incumbent making necessary declaration and also to indemnify the CBSE. The fresh certificate to be issued by the CBSE may also contain disclaimer of the Board clearly mentioning that change has been effected at the behest of the incumbent in light of the public documents relied upon by him. In addition, the incumbent can be called upon to notify about the change in the Official Gazette and by giving public notice as precondition for recording the change by way of abundant precaution.
*****
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.
*****
172. When a student applies to a court of law for prior permission and/or declaration and produces public document(s), the court would enter upon an inquiry wherein the legal presumption would operate in favour of the public document(s) and burden would shift on the party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or oppose the claim on any other ground. The question of genuineness of the document including its contents would be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the court of law would permit the desired change only upon verifying the official records and upon being satisfied of its genuineness. At the same time, the question of justiciability of the requested changes would be considered and only upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated by the student, the court would grant its permission. The said permission can then be placed before the Board along with copy of publication in the Official Gazette and requisite (prescribed) fee (if any). The Board would then have no locus to make further enquiry nor would be required to enter upon any further verification exercise.
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Certain other issues were also addressed in the judgment, with which the present case is not concerned.
29. Following the aforesaid discussions, the final conclusion and directions to the CBSE as issued by the Supreme Court are contained in paras 192 to 194.2 of the decision which reads as under:
Conclusion and directions to CBSE
192. Although we have discussed the broad issues canvassed before us, in the ultimate analysis the real dispute requiring resolution is about the nature of correction or change, as the case may be, permissible to be carried by the CBSE at the instance of the student including past student. As noted earlier, broadly, two situations would arise.
*****
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.
30. Though I have deemed it appropriate to reproduce the aforesaid passages from Jigya Yadav only to highlight the fact that the legal position now stands crystallized by the Supreme Court, the facts of the present case do not require us to embark on such a lengthy exercise. The KVS has itself corrected the name of the petitioners father in its records as Sualeheen instead of Sauleheen. The petitioner has also annexed her Aadhar Card which reflects the name of the petitioners father as Sualeheen.
31. The KVS has also written to the CBSE requesting the CBSE to effect correction of the petitioners fathers name in its Class XII Certificate.
32. Moreover, the present case is not strictly one in which the petitioner wants A change of the name of her father in the certificate but merely correction of the spelling, to which she is entitled to a much more liberal approach.
33. There is no justifiable reason why the petitioner should not be granted the relief sought in this petition.
34. Accordingly, the CBSE is directed to issue to the petitioner a revised Class xii All India Senior School Secondary Certificate Examination Marksheet of the petitioner reflecting the name of her father as Mohd. Sualeheen instead of Mohd. Sauleheen within a period of four weeks from today.
35. Ms. Aleena, learned counsel for the petitioner, undertakes to deposit the earlier certificate issued by the CBSE as well as the requisite fee for correction with the CBSE within a week from today.
36. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 16, 2024
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 (2021) 7 SCC 535
2 (2010) SCC OnLine Del 4742
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
WP(C) 221/2024 Page 1 of 18