P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Aditya Srivastava (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian Mother V. Central Board of Secondary Education And Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (23 Jan 2017)

Appellant cannot claim a vested right to have entries in school record corrected

MANU/DE/0151/2017

Education

Appellant/writ petitioner appeared for Class-X Board Examination conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in month of March, 2015 and result was declared. Thereafter, Appellant/writ petitioner got his name changed as 'Aditya Srivastav' and a public notice was issued to that effect in newspapers in June, 2015. Change of name was also notified in Gazette of India dated 5th December, 2015. On basis of same, Appellant/writ petitioner made an application on 18th December, 2015 before Respondents seeking change of his name in school records/certificates followed by another representation dated 18th January, 2016. By letter dated 03rd February, 2016, Respondent No.1/CBSE informed Petitioner that, request for change of name has not been allowed by competent authority in view of Rule 69.1(i) of Examination Bye-laws duly notified on 25th June, 2015. Aggrieved by writ petition was filed. Single Judge dismissed writ petition placing reliance upon decision in case of Kalpana Thakur and Anr. vs. CBSE wherein it was held that all applications for change of name which were filed prior to notification dated 25th June, 2015 would be governed by the un-amended Bye-law 69.1(i).

Bye-law 69.1(i) of Examination Bye-laws, 1995 of CBSE which provided for changes and corrections in name of candidate was amended vide Notification dated 25.06.2015. Though, un-amended Bye-law 69.1(i) permits consideration of request for change in name of candidate in Board's record at any stage within a period of 10 years from date of issue of first such document, as per amended Bye-Law 69.1(i) dated 25th June, 2015, a request for change in name can be considered only where change has been admitted by Court of law and notified in government gazette before declaration of result of candidate.

Admittedly, change of Appellant's name was notified in Gazette on 05th December, 2015 and result of his All India Secondary School Examination (Xth Class) was declared on 28th May, 2015. Since, change of Appellant's name has been carried out after declaration of the result on 28th May, 2015, his request for change of name in school records and certificates was rejected in terms of amended Rule 69.1(i). Having failed to challenge vires of amended Rule, it is not open to Appellant to contend that, amended Rule which disentitled the candidates to seek correction/change in name within ten years is arbitrary and illegal.

Contention that, amendment dated 25th June, 2015 cannot be made applicable to Appellant since process for correction of name has been initiated much prior to that is equally untenable since no rights can be stated to have been accrued to Appellant unless and until change of name is notified in official gazette. Therefore, crucial date is the publication in the gazette. It is not in dispute that, by date of gazette publication on 05th December, 2015, amendment to Rule 69.1(i) was already affected.

Appellant cannot claim a vested right to have entries in 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, it was held that Rule 69.2(iv) of Examination Bye-laws of CBSE fixing time limit of one year for considering the request of candidate for correction of names and date of birth entered in school records is neither arbitrary nor illegal. Hence, contentions of Appellant rejected.

Relevant : Vyanjana vs. the Chairman, CBSE

Tags : RECORDS   CHANGE OF NAME   APPLICATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved