Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as “the CBSE”). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 8.3.2006, 10.4.2006, Annexure-12 to the writ petition whereunder he and the Principal of Sainik Schook, Riwa have been informed that the request of the petitioner to correct his name in the Secondary School Certificate cannot be entertained, as the request is time barred in view of the amended Rule 69.2(iv) of the Examination Bye-Laws, which provides that request to correct the name in the Secondary School Certificate be made within two years from the date of declaration of the result of Secondary Examination. Petitioner having passed 2002 Secondary Examination conducted by the CBSE, his request to correct the name made in the year 2006 is belated and fit to be rejected in view of the amended Rule 69.2 (iv) of the Examination Bye-Laws. 3. By filing this writ petition, petitioner is assailing aforesaid order dated 8.3.2006, 10.4.2006, Annexure-12. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the CBSE that besides the request of the petitioner being time barred in the light of the provisions of the amended Rule 69.2(iv) of the Examination Bye-Laws, this writ petition is also not maintainable in this Court, as petitioner having passed Secondary examination from Sainik Schook, Rewa in the State of Madhya Pradesh, he should have challenged the order dated 8.3.2006,10.4.2006, Annexure-12 by filing writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that amended Rule 69.2 (iv) of the Examination Bye-Laws became effective from 2005 and statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 31 of the writ petition which has not been refuted by the CBSE, in the circumstances, there may not be any difficulty for this Court to hold that amended Bye-Laws will have no application to the case of the petitioner who passed the Secondary School Examination in the year 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed against the order dated 8.3.2006,10.4.2006, Annexure-12, whereunder request to correct the name has been rejected as one of the two orders has been communicated to the petitioner at his permanent address in village Kulharia within Bhojpur district in the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed against the order dated 8.3.2006,10.4.2006, Annexure-12, whereunder request to correct the name has been rejected as one of the two orders has been communicated to the petitioner at his permanent address in village Kulharia within Bhojpur district in the State of Bihar. It is also submitted that occasion to request the authorities to correct his name arose while petitioner was residing within the jurisdiction of this Court as the candidature of the petitioner for appearing before Central Airmen Selection Board was rejected in 2006 because of the discrepancy in the name of the petitioner in Secondary and Higher Secondary Certificate granted by the Board. Considering the fact of this case, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition for the reason that CBSE has all India existence and occasion to apply for correction arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori Vrs. Chief of Army Staff and Another, reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 525 whereunder Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, with reference to a matter arising out of a proceeding taken by the Army Authorities, that Chief of the Army Staff having all India presence may be sued anywhere in the country. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that petitioner in the facts of this case is well advised to rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori (supra) and placing reliance on the said judgment, I not only entertain the writ petition but also direct the CBSE to correct the name of the petitioner in his Secondary School Certificate issued in the year 2002 from Satyendra Singh to Satyendra Kumar Singh after verifying the relevant records from the Sainik Schook, Rewa. In this connection, I may only indicate that Bye-Laws being in the nature of executive instruction, any amendment made therein will have prospective effect and with reference to the amended Bye-Laws, the claim of the petitioner to correct his name in the Secondary School Certificate 2002 could not have been held to be time barred. The impugned order dated 8.3.2006/ 10.4.2006, Annexure-12 is quashed. 7. The impugned order dated 8.3.2006/ 10.4.2006, Annexure-12 is quashed. 7. Necessary compliance of this order be made by the competent authority of the CBSE as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the competent authority of the CBSE. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.