The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to change parents' names in 2001 and 2003 examination certificates. The court held the change was not a spelling error barred by limitation and the Board acted within jurisdiction.
The impugned orders were upheld; the writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22855 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vishal Gaurav Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jyoti Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.08.2018 and the order dated 15.05.2019, passed by the respondent Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), rejecting the application of the petitioner for a change in the name of his parents, as recorded in the High School and Intermediate Examination Certificates issued by the respondent Board, in the year 2001 and 2003 respectively.
The order dated 24.08.2018, was subjected to challenge in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, registered as Writ C No. 41971 of 2018, Vishal Gaurav Vs.State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was disposed of by a judgement and order, entered by this Court, on 07.02.2019. The operative portion of the judgement is extracted hereunder:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Special Appeal No. 160 of 2014 in the case of Anand Singh vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education and 2 others dated 11.2.2014, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to consider the direction of the judgment of Anand Singh (Supra) and pass a fresh appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month from
the date of production of certified copy of this order."
In compliance of the judgement of this Court dated 07.02.2019 in Writ C No. 41971 of 2018, Vishal Gaurav Vs.State of U.P. and Others, the respondent Board reconsidered the application of the petitioner and rejected the same, by order dated 15.05.2019. Hence the writ petition.
The impugned order dated 15.05.2019 records that the petitioner had passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 2003. He submitted an application for correction of his name in the Intermediate Examination Certificate to the respondent Board in the year 2007. Consequent to such application, submitted by the petitioner, the name of the petitioner as recorded in the Intermediate Examination Certificate issued by the respondent Board, was changed from 'Vishal Gautam' to 'Vishal Gaurav' on 21.02.2007 . In the year 2017, the petitioner moved an application for change in the names of his parents, as recorded in the High School Examination Certificate and Intermediate Examination Certificate issued in the year 2001 and 2003 respectively.
The impugned order dated 15.05.2019, references that the names of the parents of the petitioner, as depicted in the records of the institution last attended, while appearing in the High School Examination in the year 2001. The name of his mother of the petitioner was recorded as Rama Shastri while his father's name was Vibhuti Prasad
Shastri. Similarly, the transfer certificate issued by DAV Inter College, also records the name of the father of the petitioner as Vibhuti Prasad Shastri.
However, in other documents, the name of the mother of the petitioner is recorded as Vimala Devi while the name of the father of the petitioner is recorded as Ram Samujh Ram.
The impugned order dated 15.05.2019, then considers the relevant provisions of law which govern and regulate, the change in the names of the parents of a candidate, as recorded in the High School/Intermediate Examination Certificates issued by the respondent Board. Finally relying upon the law, laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad , reported at 2014 (3) ADJ 443 , rejects the claim of the petitioner on various grounds.
The impugned order dated 15.05.2019, finds that the application for change of name, was barred by limitation. Secondly, the names of the parents of the petitioner as depicted in the school records as well as the certificates issued by the Board, were 'Rama Devi' and 'Vibhuti Prasad' respectively.
The correctness of the order has to be tested in light of the provisions, which regulate and govern the change in the names of the parents of a candidate, as recorded in the High School/Intermediate Examination Certificates issued by the respondent Board.
The regulations framed in pursuance of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, contain Regulation 7, for correction of the details bearing in the High School and Intermediate Examination Certificates. The provisions are extracted hereunder:
ससंशशोधधित स्वरूप वववनियम - 7
" सवचिव पररिषद ककी ओरि ससे सफल उम्ममीदववारिरों कशो पररिषदद ककी परिमीकवा मम उतमीरर हशोनिसे कवा प्रमवार - पत्र वववहत प्रपत्र मम दसेगवा औरि बवाद मम उसककी प्रवववष्टियरों मम कशोई शशुवद्धि करिसेगवा , बशतर वक प्रमवार - पत्र मम वकसमी ऐसमी गलत प्रवववष्टि वकसमी अववचिवाररित धलवपरिमीय भभूल यवा लशोप कसे कवारिर यवा ऐसमी धलवपककीय मभूल कसे कवारिर ककी गई हशो , जशो असवावधिवानिमी ससे पररिषदद कसे स्तरि कसे यवा उस ससंरिथवा कसे जहवाहाँ ससे अननतम बवारि वशकवा प्रवाप्त ककी हशो स्तरि परि अवभलसेख मम हशो गई हशो। यह शशुवद्धि सवचिव दवारिवा उसमी नस्थवत मम ककी जवा सकसेगमी , जबवक अभ्यथर्थी निसे सम्बननधित परिमीकवा कसे प्रमवार - पत्र कशो पररिषद दवारिवा वनिगरमनि ककी वतधथ ससे तमीनि वषर कसे अनदरि हमी धलवपककीय त्रशुवटि ककी ओरि ध्यवानि आककष्टि करितसे हहयसे सम्बननधित प्रधिवानिवाचिवायर / अग्रसवारिर अधधिकवारिमी कशो त्रशुवटि कसे ससंशशोधिनि हसेतशु प्रवाथरनिवा - पत्र प्रस्तशुत करि वदयवा हशो औरि उसककी प्रवत पसंजमीककत डवाक ससे सवचिव , पररिषद कशो भमी प्रसेवषत ककी हशो ।
ससंशशोधधित स्वरूप
प्रवतबनधि यह हहै वक अभ्यथर्थी कसे असंकपत्र तथवा प्रमवार पत्र मम अभ्यथर्थी कसे निवाम , वपतवा कसे निवाम अथववा मवातवा कसे निवाम मम यवद कशोई वतरनिमी त्रशुवटि हहै तशो अभ्यधथरयरों दवारिवा यथवा समय आवसेदनि करिनिसे परि उससे पररिषद कसे सम्बननधित कसेत्रमीय कवायवारलय कसे कसेत्रमीय सवचिवरों दवारिवा प्रमवावरत सवाक्ष्यरों कसे आधिवारि परि तत्कवाल शशुद्धि करि वदयवा जवायसेगवा। "
The English translation of the aforesaid Regulation 7 would read as follows:-
"The Secretary shall, on behalf of the Board, issue a certificate in the prescribed form to successful candidates of having passed the examination and to make any corrections subsequently in the entries thereof provided that such incorrect entries had been made in the certificate due to any inadvertent clerical error or omission or due to any clerical error which had crept inadvertently at the level of the Board or at the level of the institution last attended. This correction may be made by the Secretary only when the candidate has submitted an application for rectification of the mistake to the Principal/Manager concerned within three years from the date of issuance of the certificate by the Board and one copy has also been sent to the Secretary by registered post:
Provided that any spelling mistake in the marksheet or the certificate issued to the candidate in regard to the name of the candidate or the name of his father or mother shall be corrected after due verification by the Regional Secretary of the concerned Regional Office at the earliest upon submission of an application by the candidate."
Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to provide a bonafide explanation for the delay. The petitioner has made an application 17 years after he passed the High School Examination in the year 2001. But what is more important is that in the year 2007, an application to the Board was made, by the petitioner himself, for a change in his own name. The petitioner was, thus aware at all times about the existence of the names of his parents in the certificates issued by the Board and in the school records.
The restrictions in the said provision are that the incorrect entries made in the certificates are liable to be corrected, only "on account of any inadvertent clerical error or omission or due to any clerical error which had crept inadvertent at the level of the Board or at the level of the institution last attended".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the names of his Uncle and Aunt who had executed the Will in his favour were introduced in the school records. The petitioner was staying with his Uncle and Aunt. He calls attention to the material and pleadings in the record to reinforce his submission.
This fact read with the material in the record discussed earlier, clearly establishes that the names of the parents of the petitioner were recorded in the school books after deliberation. Clearly the error, if any, was not inadvertent.
The respondent Board has rightly found that
there was no inadvertent clerical error in the names of the parents of the petitioner, as recorded in the certificates issued by the respondent Board. The petitioner seeks to change the identity of his parents as recorded in the High School Certificate. This is not spelling error either.
The prerequisites for change of name of the parents of the petitioner as recorded in the certificates issued by the respondent Board are not satisfied.
It could be apposite to fortify the narrative with judicial authority in point.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh (supra) held thus:
The substantive part of Regulation 7 provides for the correction of such entries in the certificate which have arisen because of any inadvertent clerical mistake or omission in the records of the Board or the Institution last attended by the candidate. It also provides that for this purpose, the candidate has to submit an application within three years of the date of issue of the certificate. However, under the proviso, any spelling mistake occurring in the name of the applicant or in the name of the applicant's father/mother in the certificate can be corrected when an application is filed for this purpose. The nature of the error which is contemplated in the substantive part of Regulation 7 is not the same as contemplated in its proviso nor is any time limit set out in the proviso. (emphasis supplied)
It would be useful to examine the particulars of the candidate that are contained in a certificate issued by the Board. They include the year of the examination, the name of the candidate, the names of the parents, date of birth, subjects opted, division obtained, name of the School/Centre, certificate number, appearance as a regular/private candidate and the date of issue of the certificate. Of these, the date of birth, the subjects opted, the year of examination and the division obtained by the candidate are particulars which have an important bearing when admission to higher classes or employment is sought by the candidate. While making any correction in the entries relating to these matters, the requirement of moving the application within three years has to be adhered to as any correction in regard to these entries would have an impact on the rights of other candidates when they seek admission to higher classes or employment. However, the other particulars contained in the certificate, like the name of the candidate or the names of the
parents of the candidate are not that relevant and any correction made in regard to these particulars would have no impact on the admission or employment of other candidates. When so considered, we feel persuaded to hold that the time limit of three years prescribed in the substantive part of Regulation 7 for submission of an application for making correction in the certificate issued by the Board in regard to the name of the candidate or the names of the parents of the candidate should not be insisted upon, particularly when the Board itself has considered it appropriate to have no time limit under the proviso for making correction in regard to any spelling mistake in the name of the candidate or his parents. The applicant must, however, explain to the Board the reasons on the basis of which the application could not be submitted earlier and if it is found that the claim is bona fide and is otherwise justified, there is no reason to reject the application, as in the present case, merely on the ground of delay. Undoubtedly, the Board has to examine whether any genuine ground has been made out for correcting the name and it would be open to the Board to consider all the relevant materials pertaining to the request for correction of the name"
This Court finds that there was no genuine ground which was made out for correcting the names of the parents of the petitioner as per the Regulations.
The Board has to process the applications for correction in the names of the parents of the candidate as per the regulations governing the affairs of the Board. The procedure is summary and the jurisdiction of the Board is limited.
However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, if so advised, for necessary relief. This matter would require consideration of evidence before a declaration in this regard can be issued.
A writ court does not have the jurisdiction to undertake the exercise of receiving and assessing evidence.
There is no infirmity in the impugned orders. The impugned orders are upheld.
The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Dhananjai
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Board was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for changing parents' names in examination certificates on grounds of delay and lack of clerical error.
Whether the correction of parents' names constitutes a spelling mistake under Regulation 7 proviso or a substantive entry requiring time limit compliance under substantive part.
Whether a writ court can determine genuine grounds for name correction requiring assessment of evidence.
Vishal Gaurav
State Of U P
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
