JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 03/13.11.2018, passed by the competent authority of the National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, Allahabad rejecting the application of the petitioner for correction in the name of his father, as recorded in the Intermediate Examination Certificate, issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "NIOS")

2. The order dated 03/13.11.2018 invalidates the claim of the petitioner, on the foot, that the application was submitted three years after the date of registration. The application was barred by limitation; the limitation period being three years, from the date of registration with the NIOS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi, submits that the respondent authorities have misdirected themselves in law. The provision relating to the limitation has been construed in a pedantic fashion. The petitioner had adequate and sufficient reason for the delay, in submitting the correction application. The authorities failed to apply their mind to the aforesaid facts in the record.

4. He relies on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh v. U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad, 2014 (3) ADJ 443.

5. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, in his usual fairness does not dispute the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Singh (supra).

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Certain relevant facts are established beyond the pale of dispute, which are relevant for the judgment of this case.

8. The petitioner appeared in the High School examination, conducted by the U.P. Board in the year 2013. The petitioner appeared in the Class 12 examination, conducted by the NIOS, in the year 2015. The name of the father of the petitioner, was incorrectly transcribed in the High School certificate, issued by the U.P. Board, as well as the Class 12 examination certificate issued by the NIOS.

9. The petitioner made an application before the U.P. Board, for rectifying the aforesaid defect in the High School Certificate. The application of the petitioner was allowed, and the name of the father of the petitioner, was corrected by the U.P. Board. The corrected certificate was issued in the year, 2017 by U.P. Board. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the NIOS, firstly, on 25.5.2017, (copy of which as per the petitioner has been misplaced). On the second occasion, an application was moved for correction in the Class 12 certificate, issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling, as per the prescribed procedure, and with the deposit of requisite fee on 7.7.2018.

10. However, the impugned order was passed, rejecting the application of the petitioner, on grounds of delay and being barred by limitation.

11. The issue relating to consequences of delay in submitting the application for correction in the names of the parents of a candidate, came up for consideration before this Court, in the case of Anand Singh (supra). In an enduring statement of law, the learned Division Bench of this Court in Anand Singh (supra), held that the issue of limitation in regard to the change in the name of the parents of a candidate, cannot be considered in a pedantic fashion:

"The substantive part of Regulation 7 provides for the correction of such entries in the certificate which have arisen because of any inadvertent clerical mistake or omission in the records of the Board or the Institution last attended by the candidate. It also provides that for this purpose, the candidate has to submit an application within three years of the date of issue of the certificate. However, under the proviso, any spelling mistake occurring in the name of the applicant or in the name of the applicant's father/mother in the certificate can be corrected when an application is filed for this purpose. The nature of the