IMPORTANT POINT
Public documents must be acknowledged in name correction requests for educational certificates, ensuring fair consideration by authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Avanish Ranjan Srivastava, counsel for the appellant, Shri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. This intra Court appeal is against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2024 passed in Writ C No. 8088 of 2023, Tushar Tripathi v. Central Board Of Secondary Education and 2 others, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge questioning the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the second respondent, Assistant Secretary (Marks and Migration) Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Civil Lines, Prayagraj and also seeking correction in the mother's name as Pritam Devi in place of Poonam Devi was dismissed.

3. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner before the writ Court was that his father's name is Shri Pritam Tripathi and the mother's name is Smt. Pritam Devi, which was correctly recorded in the third respondent-institution, J.D.S. Public School, Pancho Shivala, Village Koiripur Khurd, Post Rasulpur, District Varanasi, however, on account of fault at the end of the said institution, the name of the mother of the appellant-writ petitioner was recorded as Poonam Devi in the High School marksheet-cum-certificate.

4. It is also the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that in the marksheet of Senior Secondary Examination of the year 2022 issued by the C.B.S.E. his mother's name was correctly shown as Pritam Devi. Based on the family register maintained under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 as well as the Aadhar Card and the PAN card depicting the name of his mother as Pritam Devi, request was made for correction of his mother's name as Pritam Devi in place of Poonam Devi, however, the said request of the writ petitioner was declined by passing an order dated 21.12.2021.

5. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-C No. 8088 of 2023, which after exchange of affidavits came to be dismissed on 30.1.2024.

6. Assailing the order dated 30.1.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-writ petitioner has preferred the present special appeal.

7. Shri Avanish Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in dismissing the writ petition inasmuch as once it was the consistent stand of the appellant-writ petitioner right from the very inception that his mother's name is Smt. Pritam Devi which also stood substantiated from the entries made in the family register which happens to be a public document and it was the fault of the third respondent institution while forwarding documents giving incorrect entry with respect to the name of the mother of the writ petitioner then in view of the judgment in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, (2021) 7 SCC 535, the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for change of his mother's name deserves acceptance, thus, it is prayed that the judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the CBSE dated 21.12.2021 is liable to be set aside.

8. Countering the said submissions, Shri H.N. Pandey who appearing for the CBSE, submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference, as the learned Single Judge after summoning the records and perusing the same found that the name of the mother of appellant-writ petitioner was Poonam Devi and not Pritam Devi, thus, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. It has also been argued that there is no unfettered legal enforceable right accrued in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner to claim change in the name of the mother of appellant-writ petitioner as the same is subject to various factors which are to be assessed by the CBSE and in the present case in hand it was found that there was no document placed before