The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining consistency in personal data maintained by various statutory authorities to avoid future difficulties for individuals.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

1. This case presents somewhat peculiar circumstances whereby the essential relief sought for by the petitioner is that the respondent No 1 i.e. Central Board for Secondary Education (in short “CBSE”) be directed to correct her mother’s name in the Class X certificate. The peculiarity arises on account of the fact that the marriage of the petitioner’s mother was dissolved, albeit, by mutual consent and a decree to that effect was obtained on 23.05.2008.

2. Prior to her marriage, the petitioner’s mother’s maiden name was “Avita D Lal”. After her marriage, the petitioner’s mother, it appears, came to be known as “Shikha Chauhan”. This aspect emerges upon a perusal of the divorce decree where the petitioner’s mother is described as “Ms. Shikha Chauhan @ Avita D Lal”. Thus, in effect, the petitioner’s mother’s name, prior to her divorce would in its entirety read as “Shikha Chauhan nee Avita D Lal”.

3. After the decree for divorce was passed, the only change which was brought about vis-à-vis the petitioner’s mother’s name was that the first part of her name got excised. In other words, the petitioner’s mother reclaimed her identity as “Avita D Lal”.

4. There is no dispute that the Aadhar Card issued to the petitioner’s mother and her own birth certificate shows her name as “Avita D Lal”. There is also no dispute that in the petitioner’s mother’s birth certificate issued in the first instance by the Government of Rajasthan, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, her name was shown as Shikha Chauhan and that upon an application for correction being made, a fresh certificate was issued on 31.01.2018, wherein, the petitioner’s mother’s name is shown as Avita D Lal.

5. The record also shows that in the admission form generated for grade-IX by respondent No. 2 school, the petitioner’s mother’s name is noted as “Shikha”. Likewise, in the school leaving certificate issued by the earlier school, in which, the petitioner was admitted i.e. Shanti Gyan International School, the petitioner’s mother’s name is recorded as Shikha.

6. Besides this, the CBSE in its counter-affidavit says [and quite correctly so] that in the List of Candidates (in short “LOC”) handed over to it at the time when the petitioner was to take the Class X exam, the petitioner’s mother’s name was shown as Shikha and, therefore, the same name was recorded in the Class X certificate.

7. It is averred in the petition that upon discovering the fact that in the Class X certificate, the petitioner’s mother’s name was shown as Shikha and not Avita D Lal, she approached the officials of the CBSE. It is further averred that since the petitioner’s mother did not receive a favourable response, she wrote to the chairperson of CBSE on 30.08.2018 seeking correction in her name in the petitioner’s Class X certificate.

8. It is in this background that the petitioner approached this Court as she was unable to obtain necessary relief from the CBSE.

9. Notice in this petition was issued on 22.10.2018. The record shows that based on the oral request of the counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 school was arrayed as a party to the writ petition. The record discloses that counter-affidavits have been filed both by the CBSE and respondent No. 2 school.

10. In short, what has been recorded above is what emerges upon perusal of pleadings filed by the parties. The submissions of counsel for the parties veer around the pleadings filed in the matter. It may be relevant to note that respondent No. 2 school avers that upon being contacted by the CBSE, albeit, telephonically, the documents concerning the admission of the petitioner, who at that time was studying in grade-XI, were despatched to the CBSE.

11. It is in this backdrop that arguments on behalf of the petitioner were advanced by Mr. R.K. Sharma. On the other hand, the CBSE was represented by Mr. Amit Bansal while respondent No. 2 school was represented by Ms. Shashi Ranjan.

12. Mr. Bansal has opposed the relief sought f