Minakshi Vs Board of Secondary Education and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Minakshi Vs Board of Secondary Education and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the second appeal was dismissed and the concurrent findings of the courts below declining correction of the plaintiff's name in her educational certificates were upheld.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to correction of her name in her Secondary examination certificate, Senior Secondary examination certificate and B.Com Detailed Marks Certificates from 'Mukesh' to 'Minakshi', on her plea that the respondent school/college authorities had wrongly recorded her name.

Court's answer

The contention that any person can change his/her name at any point of time, and that the plaintiff had the right to change her name from Mukesh to Minakshi, has no merit; it is beyond the pleadings, since the plaintiff's pleaded case was that her name was Minakshi but had been wrongly recorded as Mukesh in her educational certificates, not that she wished to change from Mukesh to Minakshi.

Ratio / Principle

The Court endorsed the First Appellate Court's observation that while there can be an error in recording a date of birth, there cannot credibly be an error in recording a name for more than five years by different authorities, since use of the name is primary and any error would be detected at the initial stage itself.

Key takeaways

It is absolutely not believable that the plaintiff, whose name was Minakshi, would not have come to know that her name had been wrongly recorded as Mukesh in her Secondary School Examination Certificate, Senior Secondary School Examination Certificate and B.Com Detailed Marks Sheets before she instituted the suit, which she did only when she applied for issuance of a passport.ratio¶6
Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any factual or legal error in the First Appellate Court's findings; there is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below calling for any interference, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA No.2208 of 2019 (O&M), decided 27.01.2025 (Deepak Gupta, J.; neutral citation 2025:PHHC:011965) — Regular second appeal by a plaintiff seeking correction of her name from 'Mukesh' to 'Minakshi' in her Secondary Examination Certificate, Senior Secondary Examination Certificate and B.Com Detailed Marks Certificates dismissed. The trial court had already corrected her date of birth to 14.11.1996 (per Birth Certificate Ex.P-9 of Sub Registrar, Births & Deaths, Hisar) in place of 28.07.1997 but had declined relief qua change of name; the First Appellate Court affirmed all findings, having held that the documents relied on to prove the alleged error (Aadhaar card issued 18.10.2016, undated ration card altered from 'Mukesh Bala' to 'Minakshi', recent undated PAN card) were of a period subsequent to the certificates recording 'Mukesh', that she changed her name to Minakshi only after passing B.Com II in 2015, and that her plea that her name was wrongly recorded was 'not trustworthy'. Upholding the view that there can be an error in recording a date of birth but not in recording a name for more than five years by different authorities (use of the name being primary), the High Court held the contention that 'any person can change his/her name at any point of time' to be beyond the pleadings and devoid of merit, found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings, and dismissed the appeal. Counsel's reliance on Shweta Sharma, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 442 (P&H) did not assist: the First Appellate Court had found that case inapplicable as it concerned change of name in a birth certificate, whereas here the birth certificate bore 'Dipali' and the educational certificates 'Mukesh', and neither had the prescribed procedure for change of name been adopted nor any governing rules of the respondents shown.

Sarita Rani 2025.01.28 16:32 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

RSA No.2208 of 2019(O&M)

2025:PHHC:011965

correct the date of birth of the plain�f f as 14.11.1996 in place of 28.07.1997. However, the remaining relief as claimed by the plain�f f qua change of her name was declined.

While considering the appeal f i led by the plain�f f against the aforesaid fndings, the First Appellate Court has discussed the controversy as i under:-

“9. The short controversy in the present case is whether plain�f f is en�tled to get her name corrected in birth cer�f i cate, Secondary examina�on, Secondary School Examina�on Cer�f i cate as well as in her DMCs ‘Minakshi’ instead of ‘Mukesh’ as recorded in the above men�oned cer�f i cate.

10. From the pleadings as well as evidence of the par�es, following facts clearly emerge:-

➢ Date of birth of appellant in Birth Cer�f i cate Ex. P-9 issued by Sub Registrar, Births & Deaths, Hisar is recorded as 14.11.1996;

➢ In date of birth cer�fcate Ex. P-9 name of appellant is men�oned i as Dipali and not as Mukesh which is men�oned in her cer�f i cates or Minakshi which appellant-plain�f is seeking to change; f

➢ In Ex. P-1 Secondary Examina�on cer�f i cate, Ex. P-2 Senior Secondary Examina�on Cer�f i cate, Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-7 DMCs (Detailed Mark Cer�f i cates) for B.Com. Name of plain�f f appellant is men�oned as Mukesh. All these cer�f i cates pertains to period prior to f i ling of present suit in 2017.

11. Learned trial court has already given relief of change of date of birth as per birth cer�f i cate and no appeal has been preferred by defendants against said relief. The case of plain�f f -appellant is that she was known as Minakshi but on account of mistake of school and college authori�es her name was got men�oned as Mukesh in her educa�onal cer�f i cates Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2 & Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-7. In order to establish her plea she has placed reliance upon Aadhar card Ex. P-8, Pan card Ex. P-10 and ra�on card Ex. P-3. Perusal of Aadhar card and Pan card of plain�f f goes to show that Aadhar card was issued on 18.10.2016 and there is no date men�oned on the pan card however, from photograph on Pan card it is clear that same was recent

Sarita Rani 2025.01.28 16:32 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 2 of 5

RSA No.2208 of 2019(O&M)

2025:PHHC:011965

one. Perusal of ra�on card Ex. P-3 goes to show that same was issued in the name of ‘Minakshi’ but it is not dated and from Ex. D-1 it is clearly made out that even Ex. P-3 is recent one as in ra�on card Ex. D-1 which was issued earlier name of plain�f f has been shown as Mukesh Bala and by striking the name it has been changed to Minakshi without any ini�al on cu?ng. It is therefore, clearly made out that all the documents relied upon by appellant to show that respondents had commi@ed error in recording her name, are of subsequent period to recording of name as ‘Mukesh’ by respondents. From the evidence produced by appellant-plain�f f is clearly made out that name of plain�f- appellant was Mukesh and aBer passing B.Com II in year f 2015 she had changed the name to Minakshi. There is no error on the part of respondents in recording her name as Mukesh. Therefore, appellantplain�f f is not en�tled to get her cer�f i cate corrected for the reasons that same was got wrongly recorded by the respondents. Respondents have rightly recorded her name as Mukesh. It is to be noted that there can be error in recording date of birth and not in recording name for more than f i ve years by diferent authori�es as use of name is primary f and any error in same can be detected at the ini�al stages itself. The plea & evidence of plain�f f that her name was wrongly recorded as Mukesh by defendants is not trustworthy.

12. From the evidence led by the par�es, it is clearly made out that plain�f had sought to change of her name aBer issuance of cer�f i cates therefore she is not en�tled to get it corrected on the ground that respondents have wrongly recorded her name.”

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court that any person can change her/his name at any point of �me. He has referred to “Shweta Sharma v. State of Haryana and others”, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 442 (P&H) . The said judgment was also cited by the appellant-plain�f before the First Appellate Court and it was observed as under:-

“13. Faced with this, learned counsel for appellantplain�f f has relied upon Shweta Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 442 (P&H) to argue that name can be changed at any �me. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case. Cited case was a case where name was sought to be changed in birth cer�fcate. In present i

Sarita Rani 2025.01.28 16:32 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 3 of 5

RSA No.2208 of 2019(O&M)

2025:PHHC:011965

case in birth cer�fcate name of appellant is men�oned as Dipali and i in her educa�onal cer�fcate same is men�oned as Mukesh and i appellant wants to change both the names to Minakshi. For change of name a procedure is required to be adopted and aBer adop�ng that procedure any person can change her / his name and this fact as an endorsement may be recoded by Educa�onal Authori�es if their rules permit so. However, in present case neither plain�f f had adopted said procedure for change of name nor has shown any rules governing respondents in this regard. Appellant – appellant is not en�tled to any relief. Therefore, no fault with the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned lower Court can be found. Finding of Learned lower court on all issues is hereby af fi rmed.”

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any factual or legal error in the aforesaid f i ndings. Conten�on of appellant that any person can change his/her name at any point of �me and in case, plain�f wanted to change her name from Mukesh to Minakshi, she has the right to do so, has no merit. Said conten�on raised by counsel for the appellant is beyond pleadings. It is not the case of the appellant-plain�f f that her earlier name was Mukesh and now she wanted to change it as Minakshi. Rather her specif i c case was that though her name was Minakshi, but in the Secondary School Examina�on Cer�f i cate, Senior Secondary School Examina�on Cer�f i cate and the Detailed Marks Sheets of the Bechlor of Commerce Examina�on, her name has been wrongly men�oned as Mukesh. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that there can be error in recording the date of birth, but not in recording the name for more than 5 years by diferent authori�es, as use of the name is primary and any error in the same f can be detected at the ini�al stage itself. It is absolutely not believable that though the name of the plain�f f was Minakshi, but she could not come to know that her name had been wrongly men�oned as Mukesh in the Secondary School Examina�on Cer�f i cate, Senior Secondary School Examina�on Cer�f i cate and the Detailed Marks Sheets of the Bechlor of Commerce Examina�on before she ins�tuted the suit when she applied for the issuance of passport.

Sarita Rani 2025.01.28 16:32 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 4 of 5

RSA No.2208 of 2019(O&M)

2025:PHHC:011965

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not f i nd any merit in the present appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent f i ndings of facts as recorded by the Courts below calling for any interference. As such, present appeal is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

January 27, 2025 Sarita

Sarita Rani 2025.01.28 16:32 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 5 of 5