Sangita Dhingra Sehgal JUDGMENT
G. Rohini, C.J.
1. The appellant before us is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1242/2016.
2. The said writ petition which was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to change the name of the petitioner from 'Randhir Srivastav' to 'Aditya Srivastav' in all the records maintained by the respondents and to issue a fresh mark-sheet and certificate of Class-X Examination passed by the petitioner in the year 2015 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal dated 07.12.2016. Hence the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
4. The appellant/writ petitioner appeared for Class-X Board Examination (All India Secondary School Examination) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in the month of March, 2015 and the result was declared on 28.05.2015.
5. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner got his name changed as 'Aditya Srivastav' and a public notice was issued to that effect in the newspapers in June, 2015. The change of name was also notified in the Gazette of India dated 05.12.2015.
6. On the basis of the same, the appellant/writ petitioner made an application on 18.12.2015 before the respondents seeking change of his name in the school records/certificates followed by another representation dated 18.01.2016. By letter dated 03.02.2016, the respondent No. 1/CBSE informed the petitioner that the request for change of name has not been allowed by the competent authority in view of Rule 69.1(i) of the Examination Bye-laws duly notified on 25.06.2015.
7. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.(C) No. 1242/2016 was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition placing reliance upon the decision in W.P.(C) No. 5232/2015 dated 17.09.2015 titled Kalpana Thakur and Anr. vs. CBSE wherein it was held that all applications for change of name which were filed prior to the notification dated 25.06.2015 would be governed by the unamended Bye-law 69.1(i). The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner's application for change of name having been filed after the amendment of Bye-law No. 69.1(i) vide Notification dated 25.06.2015, the same was rightly considered in terms of the amended Bye-Law No. 69.1(i).
8. Assailing the said order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decision in Kalpana Thakur (Supra) has no application at all to the facts of the present case and that the learned Single Judge should not have relied upon the same. It is also contended that the amended Bye law cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant since the said amendment was affected on 25.06.2015 after the declaration of the result of the petitioner on 28.05.2015. The further contention is that as the appellant had initiated the process for change of his name much prior to the amendment to Bye-Law No. 69.1(i) and got the public notice published in the newspapers on 10.06.2015 itself, the rights accrued to the appellant for getting the name changed in the school records as per the un-amended Bye- Law No. 69.1(i) cannot be defeated merely on the ground of the subsequent amendment to the said Bye-Law on 25.06.2015.
9. It is not in dispute that Bye-law 69.1(i) of Examination Bye-laws, 1995 of CBSE which provided for changes and corrections in the name of the candidate was amended vide Notification dated 25.06.2015. The said Bye-law as it stood prior to the said amendment reads as under:
"69.1 Changes and Corrections in Name
i) Change in name of candidate/Father/Mother/Guardian once entered in the Board's record at any stage while studying in Class IX, X, XI, XII or thereafter, within a period of ten years from the date of issue of first such document shall be considered on written request of the candidate (not minor) /father/mother/guardian duly forwarded by the Head of the Institution supported by the following documents:
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
10. Bye-law 69.1(i) as amended vide Notification dated 25.06.2015 may also be reproduced hereunder:
"69.1(i)
Applications regarding changes in name or surname of candidates may be considered provided the changes have been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
11. As could be seen, though the unamended Bye-law 69.1(i) permits consideration of the request for change in the name of the candidate in the Board's record at any stage within a period of 10 years from the date of issue of first such document, as per the amended Bye-Law 69.1(i) dated 25.06.2015, a request for change in the name can be considered only where the change has been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the government gazette before the declaration of the result of the candidate.
12. Admittedly, the change of the appellant's name was notified in the Gazette on 05.12.2015 and the result of his All India Secondary School Examination (Xth Class) was declared on 28.05.2015. Since the change of the appellant's name has been carried out after the declaration of the result on 28.05.2015, his request for change of name in the school records and certificates was rejected in terms of the amended Rule 69.1(i). Having failed to challenge the vires of the amended Rule, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the amended Rule which disentitled the candidates to seek correction/change in the name within ten years is arbitrary and illegal.
13. The contention that the amendment dated 25.06.2015 cannot be made applicable to the appellant since the process for correction of the name has been initiated much prior to that is equally untenable since no rights can be stated to have been accrued to the appellant unless and until the change of name is notified in the official gazette. Therefore, the crucial date is the publication in the gazette. It is not in dispute that by the date of gazette publication on 05.12.2015, the amendment to Rule 69.1(i) was already affected.
14. Even otherwise, the appellant cannot claim a vested right to have the entries in the school record corrected. In identical circumstances, in W.P.(C) No. 1063/2016 titled Vyanjana vs. the Chairman, CBSE by order dated 07.12.2016, we held that Rule 69.2(iv) of the Examination Bye-laws of CBSE fixing the time limit of one year for considering the request of the candidate for correction of the names and date of birth entered in the school records is neither arbitrary nor illegal. Hence, the contentions of the appellant are untenable and are liable to be rejected.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.