5. In order to identify the precise scope of challenge, we may now delineate the factual matrix in individual petitions.

6. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3905 OF 2011
The appellant in this case, Ms. Jigya Yadav, has assailed the decision of the High Court of Delhi, dated 20.12.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3774/2010, wherein the High Court rejected the prayer for direction to the Board to carry out correction of her parents' name in the marksheets issued by it. The appellant's case was that the name of her parents was incorrectly recorded as "Hari Singh Yadav" instead of "Hari Singh" (as recorded in the identity documents of father) and "Mamta Yadav" instead of "Mamta" (as recorded in the identity documents of mother). Relying upon Byelaw 69.1 of the CBSE Examination Bye - laws, 2007, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Board in refusing the desired corrections / changes. The Court relied upon the nursery application form, school admission form and stream allotment form for class XI filled by the parents of the appellant to conclude that the errors were not inadvertent, and they had consciously chosen and retained the said names despite having opportunity to rectify before the Xth standard. It observed thus:
"15. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that despite the parents of the petitioner having mentioned their names as "Hari Singh" and "Mamta" in the petitioner's birth certificate, they have consciously and consistently chosen to record their names as "Hari Singh Yadav" and "Mamta Yadav" in the school record. Consequently, we are of the opinion that this Court in the present petition should not deal with the challenge of constitutional validity as it is the petitioner's parents who are at fault and the error, if any, has been repeated on a number of occasions by the petitioner's parents themselves. In fact, we are of the view that for the fault of the petitioner's parents, the impugned Bye - law of the respondent no. 1 cannot be set aside ..."
The Court, however, made an avoidable observation that in a country with caste - based reservations, changes in name cannot be permitted readily. It noted thus:
"17. We are also of the view that in a country where there is reservation on caste and religious grounds, change of names of parents or ward's name cannot be allowed at the drop of the hat."
The Court then observed that Byelaw 69.1 permits out corrections only to the extent of bringing conformity with the school record. In paragraph noted thus:
"21. Even if one were to apply the aforesaid test one finds that the respondent no. 1 essentially records what has been mentioned in the school records consistently and that too, upto Class X, that means, for more than 10 years the child and / or her parents have the liberty to rectify the record. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the impugned Byelaw is perfectly reasonable."
While concluding, the Court observed that the Courts must be wary of interfering in academic matters and should refrain from giving an expansive interpretation to statutory rules / byelaws as it may render the system unworkable. It noted in paragraph 22:
"22. Moreover, we are of the view that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day - to - day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to take a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of CBSE to carry the record in 21, the Court a stat