JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

SBCWP No. 6120/2019 :

1. Instant writ petition has been preferred by the Central Board of Secondary Education, assailing the award dated 13.3.2019 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat directing it to accept respondents' representation for desired changes after complying with the provisions of Rule 69.1 of the Examination Rules.

2. Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that an innocuous order has been passed by the Lok Adalat and the petition has been filed unnecessarily. Conceding that the respondents had filed the petition before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat under misconception of law and as a matter of fact, the same was not maintainable, he however pointed out that a cross writ petition has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 against the Board's refusal to issue corrected mark-sheet.

3. In view of the concession so made, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner Central Board of Secondary Education is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.3.2019 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhilwara is quashed and set aside. It is declared that the Permanent Lok Adalat inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking amendment in the mark-sheet or correction in the name of candidate or his parents, as issuance of mark-sheet or error or omission therein does not fall within the ambit of public utility services, defined and preserved under Section 22A(b) of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987.

4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

SBCWP No. 13846/2019 :

5. This writ petition (cross-petition) has been filed by the petitioners, (petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2 - a minor girl) inter alia with the prayer that the respondent - Board be directed to carry out requisite correction in the mark-sheet of 10th standard of petitioner No. 2.

6. The facts are brief: due to inadvertence, while submitting the form for 10th standard, petitioner no. 2 filled/indicated her father's name with the initials, instead of his full name. Petitioner No. 2 set out name of her father as "J.S. Tomar", in place of "Jitendra Singh Tomar" and consequently, in her mark-sheet of Secondary School Examination, 2018 issued by the CBSE, name of petitioner no. 1 (father of the student) has been shown as "J.S. Tomar.

7. It has been asserted that petitioner No. 1 is father of petitioner No. 2 and "Jitendra Singh Tomar" is his full name, whereas "J.S. Tomar" is its abbreviated form. On receiving the mark-sheet, petitioners realised this discrepancy and considering that all other documents of petitioner No. 2 contain full name of her father, petitioners thought it expedient to get the same corrected, so as to ward off any confusion/complication in future.

8. While pointing out that petitioners have got a gazette notification dated 1.5.2019 published in the official gazette of the State of Rajasthan, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards various documents placed on record, such as AADHAR card (page No. 27); birth certificate (page No. 30); Admit Card for National Talent Search Examination (NTSE) First Level, 2017-18 and Admit Card for P.D.U. State Talent Search Exam - 2017 (Page 32 & 33) both issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer of the petitioner No. 2, as well as the mark-sheet of her elder sister - Ms. Anubhi Tomar to show and establish that name of petitioner No. 1 is "Jitendra Singh Tomar".

9. Mr. Anil Kumar Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent - Board contended that the relief claimed by the petitioners could neither be granted by Permanent Lok Adalat nor can the same be granted by this Court. According to him, it can be got done only upon getting an appropriate declaration by a competent civil Court by way of filing a suit for declaration. In this regard, he placed high reliance upon Rule 69.1 (ii) of Notification dated 1.2.2018 and argued that the Board has rightly rejected petitioner's request as