Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.D. Upadhye, JJ.
MANALI D/O CHANDRASHEKHAR BARDE - Appellant
Vs.
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1400 of 2018
Decided On : 23-04-2018
D.V. Chauhan, Adv., P. Chawhan, Adv., S. Ghate, Adv.
Headnote:
Examination - Error Or Committing Mistakes - Petitioner is a minor being represented through her father and natural guardian - Parties have given us relevant dates and there is no dispute about it - It is therefore not necessary for us to mention same - For purpose of present controversy suffice it to mention that minor daughter passed ssc examination from respondent board and she appeared in that examination - Her father after following proper procedure changed his name - It is case of petitioner that in other records name of father - After change was gazette petitioner informed same through her father to respondent school - Respondent school in turn entered into correspondence with respondent board - There was reminder also and ultimately by impugned communication said request came to be rejected as it was received after stipulated time - Petitioner has stated that this communication was received by her belatedly and therefore petition has been filed in this court - By inviting attention to relevant notification which contains procedure to be followed in this respect learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner argues that rule is not attracted here and situation is covered - He also points out that result of ssc examination was declared and respondent school have forwarded request for consideration - Held, Therefore is aimed at correcting mistake which has occurred so as to bring records of CBSC in consonance with rule speaks of changes in name of father mother guardian of such students - Words factual typographical therefore covers even case in which factually there are some errors - Spelling errors may be an inadvertent or technical mistake which may take place due to pronunciation of a particular name or surname - Proper noun may carry different spelling and therefore error or committing mistakes while spelling such proper nouns are more - We therefore find that type of errors provided for in rule are of different and distinct nature - There is no overlapping and words used while describing same are not synonyms - When intention behind making such a provision is kept in mind it is clear that necessary correction to bring truth on record are permitted by these byelaws - If contention learned counsel for respondent is accepted then byelaws do not deal with case in which an adult father or mother of a child changes his/her name - There is no bar in changing same and respondent 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 effort of petitioner is to substitute correct name of her father on record of respondent request therefore ought to have been dealt - Writ Petition are allow and dispose of.
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. Chawhan, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri S. Ghate, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. On 09.03.2018, notice for final disposal was issued in the present matter, hence, in view of said orders and with consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.
2. Petitioner is a minor being represented through her father and natural guardian.
3. Parties have given us relevant dates, and there is no dispute about it. It is therefore, not necessary for us to mention the same.
4. For the purpose of present controversy, suffice it to mention that minor daughter passed S.S.C. Examination from respondent no.1 Board and she appeared in that examination in April, 2016. Her father on 13.05.2016, after following proper procedure, changed his name from 'Shekhar' to 'Chandrashekhar'. It is the case of the petitioner that in other records, name of father was always Chandrashekhar. After the change was gazetted in May, 2016, petitioner informed the same through her father to respondent no.2 School. Respondent no.2 School, in turn entered into correspondence with respondent no.1 Board. There was reminder also and ultimately, by the impugned communication dated 21.02.2017, said request came to be rejected, as it was received after stipulated time. Petitioner has stated that this communication was received by her belatedly and therefore, petition has been filed in this Court on 08.03.2018.
5. By inviting attention to relevant notification which contains procedure to be followed in this respect, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that Rule 69.1[i] is not attracted here and the situation is covered by Rule 69.1[ii]. He also points out that the result of S.S.C. Examination was declared on 28.05.2016, and respondent no.2 School have forwarded the request for consideration on 06.06.2016.
6. Shri S. Ghate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, supports the case of petitioner.
7. Shri P. Chawhan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 CBSC has invited our attention to request made by father of petitioner to respondent no.2 School for correcting name. He submits that the application dated 31.05.2016, moved by the petitioner unequivocally declares that he has changed his name from 'Shekhar Barde' to 'Chandrashekhar Barde', vide State Gazette Notification in 2016.
8. According to him, in this situation, it is not a case of correction of either spelling error or typographical mistake and, hence, the request is rightly rejected.
9. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we have perused papers. Father of petitioner has on 01.06.2016, sworn an affidavit mentioning that in school records of her daughter, his name has been registered as Shekhar Barde, and he would like to correct it as Chandrashekhar Barde. School has categorically informed respondent no.1 Board. With the result, after gazette notification, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, there is no person by name 'Shekhar Barde' and that person is substituted by or known by a name 'Chandrashekhar Barde'.
10. In the impugned communication dated 21.02.2017, respondent no.1 CBSC has invited attention of respondent no.2 School to Rule 69[1] [ii] of the Amended Examination Bye laws and informing that an application for change can be considered after the change is admitted by the Court of law and notified in government gazette before the date of declaration of result of the candidate. It is pointed out that the request for change of name made by the petitioner was received after stipulated time, and therefore, it has been rejected. Perusal of the notification dated 25.08.2015, which amends examination byelaws, reveals that Rule 69[1] [i] before amendment, specifically envisaged case of change in name of candidate/father/mother/guardian. After amend
