Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 16.01.2020 passed by the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Section Officer, (M & M), The Central Board of Secondary Education, Patna whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for correction of the name of his minor son from “Sanidhya” to “Sanidhya Kishore Singh”, has been rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has relied on several orders passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court from time to time, whereby and whereunder CBSE has been directed to make necessary corrections/ changes in the name of the concerned candidates.

4. This Court finds that the issue pertaining to change of name is no longer res-integra inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court by its recent judgment rendered on 03rd June, 2021 in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) vs. C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) and Others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 415, has set at rest the dispute regarding correction/ change in name. In this connection it would be apt to reproduce paragraph nos. 204 to 208 of the aforesaid judgment herein below:—

"CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS TO CBSE

204. 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.

205. The first is where the incumbent wants “correction” in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. As we have held there is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations. While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim against it by third party because of such correction. The CBSE would be justified in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with the fresh certificate to be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with caption/annotation against the changes carried out and the date of such correction. It may retain the original entries as it is except in respect of correction of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten. The fresh certificate may also contain disclaimer that the CBSE cannot be held responsible for the genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate. The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing fresh certificate. At the same time, the CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results. Such a condition, as we have held, would be unreasonable and excessive. We repeat that if the application for recording correction is based on the school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained by it. However, if the request for recording change is based on changed school records post the publication of results and issue of certificat