Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 901 (ALL)

PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH v. REGIONAL OFFICE CBSC BOARD

2012-04-13

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Shri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct his name in the High School Marksheet and Certificate from ‘Pankaj Yadav’ to ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’. 3. The Petitioner claims that he was a regular student of one Durga Public School, Kusmi, Gorakhpur and in the said school records his name was reflected as ‘Pankaj Singh’ as is evident from the admission receipt and annual fee receipt filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Petitioner has also filed a copy of the progress report of 3rd Terminal Examination of class IX from Durga Public School, Kusmi, Gorakhpur as Annexure-2, wherein the name of the candidate has also been shown as ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’. As Durga Public School was not affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education (for short the Board), the petitioner contacted another school namely, Udaya Public School (respondent No. 3), which is said to be affiliated with the Board so that he could appear in class X examination to be conducted by the Board. It is alleged that at the time of submission of examination form, the school authorities of Udaya Public School, obtained the signatures of the petitioner in blank examination form of the Board and the staff of Udaya Public School had written the name of the petitioner as ‘Pankaj Yadav’ in the said examination form. Accordingly roll No. 5228665 was allotted to the petitioner and the result declared and the mark sheet reflects shows the name of the petitioner as ‘Pankaj Yadav’. It is alleged that after declaration of the result, the mistake was detected in the name of the petitioner, which compelled the father of the petitioner to file an application 26.4.2007 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) before the Principal of Udaya Public School, Mahadev Shankhed, Gorakhpur with a request that the name of his son, who appeared in the Board examination from Udaya Public School, be changed from ‘Pankaj Yadav’ to ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’. The Principal of Udaya Public School, forwarded the said letter to the Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad for a decision to be taken at the level of the Board. 4. The Principal of Udaya Public School, forwarded the said letter to the Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad for a decision to be taken at the level of the Board. 4. Although no decision was communicated to the petitioner from the office of the Board, but the petitioner learnt that the request has not been accepted by the Board, hence, the present writ petition. 5. The counter-affidavit of the Board states that ‘Master Pankaj Yadav’ was a regular student of Udaya Public School and that in the list of candidates (examination form) forwarded by the principal of the institution (respondent No. 3) for appearing in the Secondary School Examination, 2007 conducted by the Board, the name of ‘Pankaj Yadav’ was forwarded to the Board. It is further stated that on the basis of the documents supplied by the Udaya Public School to the Board the name ‘Pankaj Yadav’ is recorded in the records of the Board and that even the admission card bears the name ‘Pankaj Yadav’. The candidate appeared in the Board examination with the name ‘Pankaj Yadav’ and was accordingly issued a marksheet and a certificate with the said name. On a request made by the father of the petitioner on 26.4.2007 for effecting a change in the name from ‘Pankaj Yadav’ to ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’, the Board in turn called upon the respondent school to submit all the documents as specified in the Annexure CA-3. The petitioner on 10.7.2007 supplied the copies of the following three documents to the Board. (1) Transfer certificate dated 13.8.2005 of the candidate of Class VIII from R.P.M. Academy, Ranipur Kauriram, Gorakhpur i.e. of the previous school. (2) Copy of the admission form dated 7.4.2005 submitted at the time of admission in 9th standard in Udaya Public School, Gorakhpur. (3) The relevant extract of scholar register in respect of the petitioner from Udaya Public School. 6. It is further stated that under clause 69.1 of the Examination, Bye-laws of the Board, the change of name can be considered only when the same is permitted by the Court of law and also notified in the Government gazette and as the said procedure has not been adopted, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. 6. It is further stated that under clause 69.1 of the Examination, Bye-laws of the Board, the change of name can be considered only when the same is permitted by the Court of law and also notified in the Government gazette and as the said procedure has not been adopted, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. Counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Udaya Public School - respondent No. 3 wherein it is asserted that the petitioner had taken admission in Udaya Public School, Gorakhpur in class IX on 7.4.2005 and that at the time of admission he had filed a transfer certificate of an earlier school i.e. R.P.M. Academy wherein also the name of the petitioner was transcribed as ‘Pankaj Yadav’. 8. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 9. It is submitted by Shri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the mistake was committed by the respondent school in entering the correct name of the petitioner, inasmuch as, name ‘Pankaj Yadav’ was recorded instead of ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’, hence, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the mistake committed by the respondent school and, therefore, the respondent Board is liable to carry out the necessary correction in the name of the petitioner in the Marksheet and the Certificate issued to him. Shri Rai further submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State of Gujarat and others, 2010 (68) ACC 840 (SC), this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ample power to ensure that the rights of the citizen are duly protected and to come to the rescue of the person in an appropriate case. 10. Shri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that on the materials on record it is established beyond doubt that the respondent school did not commit any mistake in entering the name of the petitioner as ‘Pankaj Yadav’. He further submits that the change in name has serious consequences, therefore, the same is permissible only within the parameters of the prescribed norms, and as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any case for change in name on available materials, no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted. 11. He further submits that the change in name has serious consequences, therefore, the same is permissible only within the parameters of the prescribed norms, and as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any case for change in name on available materials, no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted. 11. The undisputed facts, which emerge from the record, are that the petitioner appeared in Class X examination in the year 2007 and the examination form (list of candidates), which was filled up and signed by the petitioner and forwarded by the Principal of the respondent school to the Board the name of the petitioner was shown as ‘Pankaj Yadav’. The admission card, which was issued to the petitioner, a copy whereof has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure 3 to the petition, (wrongly described as Mark-sheet) also reflects the name of the candidate as ‘Pankaj Yadav’. On a request made by the father of the petitioner on 26.4.2007 for effecting a change in the name Pankaj Yadav’ to Pankaj Kumar Singh’ the Board had called upon the respondent school to submit the three documents, as were specified in Annexure CA-3 and in compliance thereof the petitioner on 10.7.2007 supplied the copies of the following three documents. (1) Transfer certificate dated 13.8.2005 of the candidate of Class VIII from R.P.M. Academy, Ranipur Kauriram, Gorakhpur i.e. of the previous school. (2) Copy of the admission form dated 7.4.2005 submitted at the time of admission in 9th standard in Udaya Public School, Gorakhpur. (3) The relevant extract of scholar register in respect of the petitioner from Udaya Public School. 12. A perusal of the Transfer Certificate dated 13.8.2005 would indicate that the same was issued by R.P.M. Academy, Ranipur Kauriram, Gorakhpur wherein the name of the candidate has been reflected as Pankaj Yadav’, who was shown to have been admitted in the said school on 5.7.2004 and left the same on 31.3.2005 in Class VIII. The second document is an application form, which was filled by the petitioner in the respondent school on 7.4.2005 for the purposes of admission in Class IX. Here again, the name of the candidate has been shown as Pankaj Yadav’ and the same has also been signed by the parent wherein the parent has given a declaration that the information furnished by him is correct to the best of his knowledge. Here again, the name of the candidate has been shown as Pankaj Yadav’ and the same has also been signed by the parent wherein the parent has given a declaration that the information furnished by him is correct to the best of his knowledge. The third document is the relevant extract of scholar register and the transfer certificate form, wherein also the name of the candidate has been shown as ‘Pankaj Yadav’. It is also mentioned that the entries made therein as regards details of school have been duly checked from the admission form. 13. Even otherwise, the admission card, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the petition, (wrongly described as Marksheet) also reflects the name of the candidate as ‘Pankaj Yadav’. 14. From the aforesaid, it is evidently established that all through out the candidate has been shown as ‘Pankaj Yadav’ and not ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’. Any previous stray document wherein the name of the candidate has been shown as ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’, such as the progress report of the candidate of Durga Public School (Annexure 2 to the petition) has no relevance or bearing as compared to the Transfer Certificate, Admission Form, Scholar Register and the admission card, wherein the name ‘Pankaj Yadav’ has been consistently recorded, therefore, the same would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. 15. Against the backdrop of these facts, this Court is more than convinced that no mistake or mischief was committed by the Respondent School in entering the name of the candidate as ‘Pankaj Yadav’ in their school record. 16. The judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not be applicable on the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the observations made in paragraph 33 of the said judgment wherein the Apex Court held that the High Courts and the Supreme Court are the sentinels of justice and have been vested with extraordinary powers of judicial review and supervision to ensure that the rights of the citizens are duly protected and that the Courts have to maintain a constant vigil against the inaction of the authorities in discharging their duties and obligations in the interest of the citizens for whom they exist, were made in relation to monitoring of a criminal investigation by the High Court. 17. 17. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner before claiming a writ of mandamus, for the relief claimed in the writ petition has to demonstrate on the basis of the available materials beyond any doubt that he has made out a foolproof case for consideration for effecting a change in his name, in accordance with the prescribed norms. On the contrary, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for change of name, within the prescribed norms. Accordingly, this Court would not issue any futile writ to the respondent board to even consider the request of the petitioner within the prescribed norms when on the basis of the materials on record, it stands evidently established that the name of the candidate is ‘Pankaj Yadav’ and not ‘Pankaj Kumar Singh’. 18. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ———————