The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Rule 26.4 and Appendix Six of the Secondary School Code enable even students who are no longer studying to apply for correction of their name or surname based on documentary evidence.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties heard finally.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondent authorities for correction in the petitioner's first name in his school leaving certificate, passing certificate, mark sheet etc.

3. The petitioner who is minor has filed this writ petition through his father, guardian and next friend. The petitioner herein was a student of 4th respondent school in Standard X in the year 2009-10. He passed SSC Examination in March 2010. When he was studying in the 4th respondent school, there was an error in the spelling of his first name which was written as "JAMAL ASHAAD". His correct name is "JAMAL ARSHAD". When he noticed mistake, he approached the headmistress of the 4th respondent school requesting her for correction of the school record. In turn, the petitioner was advised by the headmistress to get his name corrected by publishing the corrected name in the Government Gazette. Accordingly, the petitioner has got corrected the first name and same is published in the Government Gazette. The petitioner has placed on record at Exhibit-A, the copy of Government Gazette dated 1-12-2011 to 7-12-2011.

It is further case of the petitioner that, after he passed the Standard "X' Examination (SSC Examination), in the month of March 2010, he took admission in the 5th respondent College in Standard 'XI' (Commerce stream). By an application/letter dated 17-09-2010 the petitioner's father requested the Principal of the 5th respondent Junior College to effect the change in the relevant record with the correct name of the petitioner. The said correspondence between the Principal of the 5th respondent and the father of the petitioner is placed on record alongwith writ petition. The Principal of the 5th respondent in turn, wrote to the 2nd respondent Deputy Director of Education making the similar request to make the correction in the petitioner's first name. By a letter dated 12-07-2011 the 2nd respondent informed the Principal of the 5th respondent College that as per the provisions of Rule 26.3 of the Secondary School Code the name or surname of a student cannot be changed once school is left by him/her.

Another letter dated 12-10-2011 was written by the petitioner's father to the 2nd respondent referring to the correspondence. However, there was no positive response from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner by the Advocate's notice dated 03-11-2011 to all the respondents, requested to correct the first name, on failure, it was stated that the petitioner will have to file the writ petition. However, there was no response from the respondent authorities. Hence this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner's correct name is "Arshad". In stead in the school record, College record and other record such as school leaving certificate, mark sheet, hall ticket etc., his name has been wrongly mentioned as "Ashaad". It is submitted that, the petitioner has got his name corrected by gazetting the same in the Government Gazette. In spite of that, the correction has not been carried out by the respondent authorities in the school record. It is further submitted that, it was a bonafide mistake on the part of 4th respondent school while giving school leaving certificate. It is submitted that, merely because the petitioner has left the school, cannot be ground to refuse to correct the school record. It is submitted that, Rule 26.3 of the Secondary School Code cannot be read in isolation and same has to be read conjointly with Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School Code. It is submitted that, Education Inspector refused to entertain the request of the petitioner citing Rule 26.3 which pertains to change in date of birth whereas he could have done it under Rule 26.4 (2) of the Secondary Scho