JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 02.12.2020 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-non appellant was allowed.

2. The writ petition was filed to seek a direction on the Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) for change of name of the petitioner-non appellant in their record from Rishu Jaiswal to Kabir Jaiswal and issue the certificate. The prayer aforesaid was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

3. It is after taking note of the fact that on the application made by the petitioner-non appellant to a competent authority, the name was changed from Rishu Jaiswal to Kabir Jaiswal with publication of Notification in the Gazette of India, bearing No. 44 New Delhi, Saturday, November 2 - November 8, 2019. Based on the Gazette Notification, a prayer was made to the C.B.S.E. to change the name of the non-appellant in their record and issue the certificate.

4. The prayer aforesaid was not exceeded to rather it was rejected vide order dated 27.05.2020. It was mainly on the ground that school records does not support change of name, as sought by the non-appellant. That was the only ground to deny change of name in the record. The learned Single Judge after relying on the judgments of the High Court so as the Apex Court and referring to the relevant clauses of C.B.S.E. Bye-laws, found no reason to deny change of name and accordingly order impugned was set aside with a direction to undertake exercise, as directed therein within a period of two months.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Manish Goyal submits that the impugned order has been passed holding C.B.S.E. Bye-laws to be non statutory and thereby ignoring the period within which change of name can be sought, directions have been given. It is also submitted that in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Guardian/Father Hari Singh vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 415, the C.B.S.E. Bye-laws were held enforceable. The learned Single Judge held that the Bye-laws are not having flavour of statute, thus, period of three years to seek correction or change in the name as per clause 69 of the Bye-laws could not have been affected the prayer. It is also submitted that period of three years has been given to seek correction or change in the name while applicant is a student of C.B.S.E. and not after passing of the examination of the C.B.S.E.

6. Referring to the facts of this case, it is stated that non-appellant cleared C.B.S.E. Examination in the year 2013 while application for change in name was given in the year 2019. It was admittedly beyond the period of three years even if a liberal construction of the Bye-laws is taken to allow a student to seek change in the name after passing C.B.S.E. Examination. The application was beyond three years even then.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in case of change of name by the candidate at his choice, a declaration by the Court of law is required. In the instant case, there was no declaration by the Court of law and thereby the judgment of learned Single Judge is even hit by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra) where it was made necessary.

8. The prayer is to set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge.

9. The appeal has been contested by the learned counsel for non-appellant. He submits that judgment in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra) is not adverse to the non-appellant rather it supports him. In the case of Jigya Yadav (supra), the Apex Court has referred to the period for seeking correction or change of the name but therein also, the appeal was not dismissed by the Apex Court on the ground of expiry of period rather a favourable direction has been given.

10. Accordingly, the judgment aforesaid favours the non-appellant.

11. It is even in reference to the request