JUDGMENT : 

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Petitioner before this Court is a Transgender person, as recognized under the provisions of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2019”) read with Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2020”).

2. The District Magistrate concerned in terms of Section 6 of Act, 2019 has issued a Certificate of Identity. Subsequently, petitioner has undergone a surgery to change gender (Female to Male) and further in terms of Section 7 of Act, 2019 read with Rule 6 of Rules, 2020 a Certificate was issued by District Magistrate concerned in a prescribed format.

3. It is further case of petitioner that subsequently an application was filed to change the name in educational documents in terms of Rule 5(3) read with its Annexure-1. However, by means of impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed by Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, application of petitioner was rejected that relevant provisions and Government Order do not provide any procedure for correction of name in educational documents at a very belated stage and provisions of Act, 2019 read with Rules, 2020 were held to be not applicable.

4. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akshay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Mrs. Chitrangada Narain, Sri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Akash Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Advocates for petitioner and Sri Amit Saxena, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents, have made their respective submissions. Learned counsel for parties have also placed various judgments passed by Supreme Court as well as High Courts of other States in Jane Kaushik vs. Union of India and others, 2025 INSC 1248; National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India and others (2014) 5 SCC 438; Dr. Beoncy Laishram vs. State of Manipur and others, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 430; K. Prithika Yashini vs. TNUSRB, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 11834; Arun Kumar vs. Inspector General of Registration, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 8779; S. Swapna (Transgender) vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (WP (MD) No. 10882 of 2014); K. Gowtham Subramaniyam vs. The Controller of Examination (WP No. 7536 of 2017); Shri Vinod H.N. vs. State of Karnataka (WP No. 54037 of 2017); Poojitha B.P. vs. Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and others (WP No. 54037 of 2017); Christina Lobo vs. State of Karnataka (WP No. 8024 of 2020); Jeeva vs. State of Karnataka (WP No. 12113 of 2019); X. vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 652; and, Vedant Maurya alias Kumari Soni vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:69459.

5. After going through the aforesaid judgments and perusal of records as well as after considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties, the Court is of the opinion that impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the reasons for such conclusion are as follows:

(I) Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is a Special Act.

(II) Section 20 of Act, 2019 provisions that provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, concerned respondent has committed a legal error by not applying provisions of Act, 2019 in favour of petitioner.

(III) On basis of record, there is no dispute that petitioner was entitled to file application in terms of Rule 5(3) of Rules, 2019 read with its Annexure-1 to change gender, name and photographs in all official documents provided in its annexure which also include any educational certificate issued by a School, Board, College, University or any such academic Institution [Serial No. 1 to Annexure-1 of Rule 5(3)] .

(IV) The respondents-State have not brought on record any other judgment which could contradict application of provisions of Act, 2019 read with Rules, 2020.

(V) In similar circumstances in Dr. Beoncy Laishram (supra) a Single Bench