JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Krishnam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3, Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and perused the record.

2. The grievance raised by the writ petitioner is that her name be changed from Pooja Devi to Pooja Yadav in Class 10th and 12th Marks-sheet as well as certificate.

3. It is contended that the petitioner now wants to be known by the name of Pooja Yadav in place of Pooja Devi.

4. The writ petition has been opposed by all the respondents and it has been argued that the identical controversy has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.06.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011 (Jigya Yadav (Minor) through guardian/father Hari Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others), reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535. In fact, learned counsel for both sides have placed reliance upon the same judgment and it has been argued that even if the Apex Court has permitted change of name, different categories have been spelt out in the judgment of Jigya Yadav (supra). Reference to paragraph no.171 ha