AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 10.01.2023, passed against the petitioner by the respondent authorities;
10.2 That, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners request to amend/change his name from 'Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav' to 'Yogesh Yadav' in High School Examination certificate 2010 (10th Standard) and Higher Secondary Examination certificate 2012 (12th standard) issued by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education;
10.3 Any other relief deemed fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.
The facts of the present case are that the petitioner passed his high-school certificate examination in the year 2010 and higher secondary certificate examination in the year 2012 from the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur. In the school admission register, his name was recorded as “Yugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. In some documents, his name is misspelt as “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav” or “Ugeshwar Yadav”. Even in the mark sheets of Classes 10th and 12th, his name is mentioned as “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. Later on, the petitioner changed his name from “Yugeshwar Kumar Yadav” to “Yogesh Yadav”. He moved applications for correction of his name on the Aadhaar card and PAN card too and the same were amended by the respective authorities. The petitioner moved an application before the Board of Secondary Education for a change of name from “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav” to “Yogesh Yadav” on 05.09.2022. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.01.2023 rejected the representation(s) / application(s) moved by the petitioner on the ground that application with regard to correction of name, surname, father’s name and mother’s name cannot be entertained and there is no provision with regard to “change of name”. The petitioner has preferred this petition assailing the order dated 10.01.2023.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the decision of respondent No. 2 whereby the application moved by the petitioner was rejected is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that in other educational certificates, Aadhaar card, PAN card etc., the name of the petitioner is recorded as “Yogesh Yadav.” He also submitted that an application was moved before respondent No. 2 to correct the name in the mark sheets of Classes 10th and 12th but the same has been denied contrary to the circular issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur in this regard. He would invite the attention of this Court to the circular issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur dated 31.03.2022 which permits correction in the name of the student, surname, father’s name and mother’s name. He further contended that the authority ought to have allowed the application so moved by the petitioner as the limitation to move such an application is 20 years and the petitioner has moved the application well within the period of limitation. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgments passed by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Manali V. C.B.S.E., Chennai & Anr. reported in 2018 (6) Mh. L.J. and the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Rayaan Chawla V. University of Delhi & Anr. reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1413.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 would oppose. He submitted that in the school admission register, the name of the petitioner was entered as “Yugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. He further submitted that in the mark sheets of Classes 10th and 12th, the petitioner’s name was entered as “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. He contended that the petitioner passed his high-school certificate examination in the year 2010 and higher-secondary certificate examination in the year 2012 whereas he filed an application for correction of his name in the records in the year 2023. He further submitted that the circular relied upon by the petitioner talks about the correction of name, surname, father’s name and mother’s name wherein there is no provision for “change of name”.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would adopt the contention advanced by Mr. Pandey.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.
A circular was issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur regarding the correction of name, father’s name, mother’s name and surname on 31.03.2022 according to which correction in the name, father’s name, mother’s name and surname is permissible. Evidently, the name of the petitioner in Class I was recorded as “Yugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. In some of the mark sheets issued prior to 2010, his name was recorded as “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. The petitioner submitted his examination form for Classes 10th and 12th and perhaps entered his name “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav” and thereafter, mark sheets were issued with the name “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. The petitioner passed his high-school certificate examination the year 2010 and higher secondary certificate examination in the year 2012 whereas the application for correction i.e. change of name was moved before the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur in the year 2023 and the same was rejected by respondent No. 2 on 10.01.2023 on the ground that “change of name” is not permissible.
The High Court of Bombay in the matter of Manali (supra) wherein an application was moved by the petitioner for a change of name of the father of the student from “Chandrashekhar” to “Shekhar”, while allowing the petition held as under:-
“18. When intention behind making such a provision is kept in mind, it is clear that necessary correction to bring the truth on record are permitted by these bye-laws. If contention of Shri P. Chawan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is accepted, then the bye-laws do not deal with the case in which an adult father or mother of a child changes his/her name. There is no bar in changing the same, and respondent No. 1 cannot prohibit it. Therefore, it also cannot regulate it. There is no question of any time limit or limitation period, at least when a minor student also has no role in such change of name.
Here, we find that the effort of petitioner is to substitute correct name of her father, on record of respondent No. 1. The request therefore, ought to have been dealt with under Rule 69.1(ii).
We therefore, find the impugned order dated 21-2-2017 unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. We direct respondent No. 1 to take on record name as 'Chandrashekhar' and substitute it in place of 'Shekhar', as fathers' name of present petitioner. Necessary correction be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.
With these observations and orders, we partly allow the Writ Petition and dispose of the same. Needles to mention that after such correction, the documents like marksheet, migration, etc., required by the petitioner, shall be issued to her with necessary correction, within next two weeks and as per law. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.”
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Rayaan Chawla (supra), wherein the petitioner/student wanted to adopt the surname of his mother. In that case, the name of the mother was “Payal Chawla” and the petitioner’s parents got separated in the year 2007. The petitioner was staying with his mother, therefore, he moved an application for a change of surname from “Singh” to “Chawla”. The High Court while deciding the petition held as under:-
On the right of a man to his name, I may look at a judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kailash Gupta v. CBSE, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1590. That was also a case where the petitioner had sought to change her name. In those facts, the court held as follows:
"1. Four centuries ago, when William Shakespeare wrote the Classic "Romeo and Juliet", he felt that name did not matter much In the present times, if one is asked the same question "What's in a name"?, the answer would be: "Its everything".
1.1 In this writ petition, this Court is confronted with an instance where a young girl, who wished for a change of name, stumbled upon an obstacle in the form of CBSE who turned down her request for incorporating the change of name on a hyper technicality.
XXX XXX XXX
Name is something very personal to an individual. Name is an expression of one's individuality, one's identity and one's uniqueness. Name is the manner in which an individual expresses himself to the world at large. It is the foundation on which he moves around in a civil society. In a democracy, free expression of one's name in the manner he prefers is a facet of individual right. In Our Country, to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is certainly a part of right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) as well as a part of the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. State or its Instrumentalities cannot stand in the wav of use of any name preferred by an individual or for any change of name into one of his choice except to the extent prescribed under Article 19(2) or by a law which is just, fair and reasonable. Subject to the limited grounds of control and regulation of fraudulent or criminal activities or other valid causes, a bonafide claim for change of name in the records maintained by the Authorities ought to be allowed without hesitation.
XXX XXX XXX
Power of interpretation available to this Court to correct errors committed by the draftsman is quite wide. When the language of a statute in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. The above mentioned principle has been restated in the decisions in Pentiah v. Mudalla Veeramallappa, (AIR 1961 SC 1107), Eera v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133), and also by a Full Bench of this Court in Viswambaran P.N. v. T.P. Sanu, ((2018) 2 KLT 947)."
Hence, the aforesaid judgment has clearly stated that to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) as well as right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be denied that the right to change a name is a protected right and the petitioner would normally be not denied the said right on technical issues.
It is evident that the name of the petitioner was initially recorded as “Yugeshwar Kumar Yadav” and later on, due to clerical error, it was entered as “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav”. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in Classes 10th and 12th examinations as “Ugeshwar Kumar Yadav” in the years 2010 and 2012 respectively and he was very well aware that his name was wrongly mentioned in his school certificates but he moved application for rectification of his name in the year 2023 before respondent No. 2, which was turned down on the ground that correction of name, surname, father’s name and mother’s name is permissible but change of name is not permissible. The circular dated 31.03.2022 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur clearly states that only correction of name, surname, father’s name and mother’s name is permissible. It does not speak about “change of name”.
The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner were under the peculiar circumstances to allow those applications whereas in the present case, the petitioner knew very well that his name was wrongly recorded in the school certificates even though he continued to keep mum for a considerable period of more than 10 years. It is not a case of “correction of name” but “change of name”, therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the cases cited above.
Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No. 2. Consequently, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.