Important Points:
The claim of the petitioner for change of name is wholly justified and that she has been wrongly denied such a change of name from being incorporated in her school records, the relief that has been claimed in the writ petition is only for a direction to correct her name in Ext. P4 and all other records maintained with the 1st and 2nd respondent's. Since by Ext. P7, 2nd respondent had already conveyed the rejection of the request for change of name, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have challenged the said communication, also. In the absence of such a relief, technically this Court ought to have relegated the petitioner to appropriate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

"What's in a name"?

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. 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.

2. Young Miss Dinky Gupta, on attaining a reasonable level of maturity, for reasons purely personal to her, decided to change her name to Kashish Gupta. State of Kerala accepted petitioner's wish to change her name and effected a Gazette notification in 2017 to that effect, as is seen from Ext. P1. It mentions the details of her birth certificate, her Passport number, Aadhar Card number, thereby giving sufficient details as to the identity of the petitioner. Pursuant to the Gazette notification, change of name was carried out in the birth certificate of the petitioner as is revealed from Ext. P2. A "one and the same" certificate was also issued by the village officer stating that the two differing names of the petitioner refer to the same person -itself.

3. It is seen that, by the time the aforesaid processes were completed, petitioner had written her All India Secondary School Examination in 2018. Certificate issued by the CBSE, which is produced as Ext. P4 contains petitioner's former name, since obviously, it was based on the records available with the school. However, the School authorities on the basis of the certificates produced before it, recorded the change of name. At the request of the parents of the Petitioner, the Principal of the School submitted Ext. P6 application to the 200 respondent, requesting to carry out the change of name in the CBSE certificates and records. Surprisingly, an e-mail communication is seen sent to the school, which is produced as Ext. P7, wherein an information is given that "The desired change in Candidate's name cannot be considered in the light of CBSE notification dated 01-02-2018 as per rule No. 69.1 (i) duly incorporated in the Examination Bye Laws. Therefore, your request for the said change in Candidate's name has been rejected by the Board." Inspite of the above email communication, Petitioner was issued with the admit card for the main-examination of CBSE for the year 2020, with the name 'Kashish Gupta' and it is submitted that she has in fact appeared for two of the examinations that were held prior to the declaration of the nationwide lockdown. Since an anomaly of far-reaching consequences may result if the variance in the name of the petitioner is not corrected, petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus, to the CBSE to correct her name in the mark sheet of All India Secondary School Examination 2018, as well as in all other records maintained by them.

4. It is seen that within a fortnight of filling the writ petition, the lockdown was declared and the writ petition could not be considered by this Court. On account of the urgency of the matter involved, the case was brought up at the instance of the petitioner, during the vacation sitting of this Court and with the consent of both sides, the matter was heard through videoconferencing.

5. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. K.R. Vinod for the petitioner, as well as the learned Standing Counsel, Sri. S. Nirmal for the CBSE.

6. In his vehement objections, Sri. Nirmal submits that, even though there is no dispute as to the identity or the bonafides of the change in name, it is difficult for CBSE to incorporate the change of name after publication of the results on account of various technicalities that they face. He referred to Rule 69.1(i) of the amended CBSE bye laws and canvassed that change of name can be effected only if it is done before publication of the results. He also submitted that purs