JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-student who appeared in the Secondary School Examination, conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, claiming changes in the name of his mother and date of birth, recorded in the certificate of Secondary School Examination which was declined by the Board vide their communication made to the Institution, impugned herein dated 10th June, 2011 (Ann.14). 2. It has been alleged in the writ petition that petitioner's father is a Government servant and has nominated his mother Sunita Sharma in the State Insurance Policy and in all of his service record. The petitioner and his younger brother Vishal, both joined Keshav Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City, District Karauli but the discrepancy revealed prior to the petitioner appeared in the Secondary School Examination, as such, his father approached the Principal of the Institution who after examining the school records sent a letter dated 6th December, 2010 to the District Education Officer for carrying out necessary correction in the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner. In reference thereof, the District Education Officer vide his letter dated 28th December, 2010 granted approval to change the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner. The Principal of the Institution, after the receipt of the said approval made appropriate correction in the name of petitioner's mother Smt.Sunita Sharma in place of Smt.Madhu and also corrected the year of date of birth from 1998 to 1995, as evident from Annexure-9, the certificate issued for qualifying 8th Board Pattern Examination, 2009. It is further mentioned that it was not the petitioner alone but since there was alike discrepancy in the name of mother and date of birth of his younger brother who too was from the same school, appropriate corrections in the name of his mother and date of birth was made in the certificates issued to him in qualifying 8th Board Pattern Examination. The xerox copy of the certificates of petitioner & his younger brother Vishal Sharma for qualifying 8th Board Pattern Examination are placed on record as Annexures-9 & 10 respectively. 3. The xerox copy of the certificates of petitioner & his younger brother Vishal Sharma for qualifying 8th Board Pattern Examination are placed on record as Annexures-9 & 10 respectively. 3. After the corrections were made in the school records as also in the 8th Board Pattern Examinations under the directions of the District Education Officer vide their order dated 28th December, 2010 (Ann.5), the Principal of Institution vide his letter dated 3rd March, 2011 requested the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education for giving effect to the necessary corrections in the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner, as mentioned by him in his letter along with a list of 36 students who also needed certain necessary corrections. In reference thereof, the Board of Secondary Education sent its communication dated 2nd May, 2011 that the amendment, as desired, and the photograph has not been countersigned by DIET and it would be possible to consider such corrections only after the documents are countersigned and as per the letter of the Board dated 2nd May, 2011, Institution made compliance and after being duly countersigned sent the documents to the Secondary Board of Education. 4. However, the Board finally declined the request and as the communication was going on through the Institution, informed the Institution vide their communication dated 10th June, 2011 (Ann.14) that it would not be possible for the Board under its scheme of Regulations to give effect to the changes, as proposed by the Institution. 5. The petitioner being directly affected by the communication sent by the Board, sent a legal notice through his counsel dated 14th July, 2011 and thereafter approached this court by way of instant petition. 6. 5. The petitioner being directly affected by the communication sent by the Board, sent a legal notice through his counsel dated 14th July, 2011 and thereafter approached this court by way of instant petition. 6. As a matter of fact, this court would like to record that in the Secondary School Examination certificate issued to the petitioner, the name of his mother has been reflected as Madhu Sharma and his date of birth has been shown as 17th October, 1998 but as the same problem was being faced by his younger brother Vishal Sharma as well, on the request being sent by the Principal of the Institution duly approved by the District Education Officer, the changes have been given effect to and when his younger brother Vishal appeared in the Second School Examination, 2012 all these changes have been given effect to and in the certificate issued to him (Vishal Sharma) his mother's name has been shown as Sunita Sharma and his date of birth recorded in the certificate is 16th September, 1997 and the apparent discrepancy, according to the petitioner, is that he is elder to Vishal Sharma and both are real brothers, his date of birth in the certificate issued to him is 17th October, 1998 and the date of birth of his younger brother is 16th September, 1997 whereas the mother's name of petitioner has been shown as Madhu Sharma whereas the mother's name of his younger brother has been shown as Sunita Sharma and the fact is that his father is a Government Servant working as Junior Engineer and in all of his service record, his mother as a nominee is shown as Sunita Sharma. 7. 7. It is further pertinent to record that in the examination form which the petitioner filled for appearing in the Secondary School Examination, 2011, he mentioned the name of his mother as Sunita Sharma and also his date of birth as 17th October, 1995 but the Board made changes in both the columns on the premise that it did not tally along with the school record but at the same time, change was given effect to later on in the records of the Institution and approval of the District Education Officer was not given effect to and since by that time the petitioner appeared in the Secondary School Examination, the change has not given effect to in the certificate issued to him of the Secondary School Examination. 8. 8. After the notice of the present petitioner came to be served on the respondents, reply has been filed and what has been pointed out in para-2 of the reply is that petitioner filled his examination form for appearing in the Secondary School Examination on 17th August, 2010 and the Institution wrote a letter dated 6th December, 2010 to the District Education Officer, Karauli requesting for change in the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner, which was approved by the District Education Officer vide letter dated 28th December, 2010 and a letter was sent by the Institution to the Board on 3rd March, 2011 giving effect to the change in the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner and the District Education and Training Institution (DIET), Goner, Jaipur made correction in the mark-sheet on 14th March, 2011 making amendment in name of mother's name and date of birth of the petitioner and the request was sent on 10th June, 2011 but by that time the petitioner appeared in the Second School Examination and mark-sheet was issued on 25th June, 2011 obviously indicating the name of his mother as Madhu Sharma and the date of birth as available with the Board and it has been further averred by the respondent's counsel that last date for submission of application form with additional fee was 9th September, 2010 and after passing of the said date, any act or omission on part of concerned authority or candidate is not binding upon the Board which has to conduct examination involving large number of candidates and at no point of time upto 3rd March, 2011, the Board was made aware of change in name of candidate's mother and date of birth in the application form to appear in the examination which was already filled-in prior to the permission sought to change name of candidate's mother and date of birth, as such, what is being proposed and even with the approval of the District Education Officer could not give effect to after the petitioner appeared in the examination. However, it has further been averred that the petitioner did not move any application before the Board and the correspondences were undertaken by the Institution with the Board and the final communication dated 10th June, 2011 (Ann.14) was sent by the Board to the Institution and not to the petitioner. 9. However, it has further been averred that the petitioner did not move any application before the Board and the correspondences were undertaken by the Institution with the Board and the final communication dated 10th June, 2011 (Ann.14) was sent by the Board to the Institution and not to the petitioner. 9. Counsel for petitioner submits that the Board has invoked Reg.5(7) in rejecting the recommendation made by the DIET for giving effect to the change in the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner, However, according to him such of the students who appeared in the Board Examination and thereafter want to give effect to changes either in the name of their parents, date of birth or other discrepancies, if any, can always move an application to the Board within five years from the date of declaration of result under Reg.5(2) of the Board Regulations thus, if the petitioner has submitted his application seeking correction, as proposed, prior to appearing in the examination with the prior approval of the concerned authorities that would not deprive the petitioner from submitting the application form even after appearing in the examination under Reg.5(2) and thus the very decision of the Board in rejecting to consider the correction, as requested by the petitioner, in the name of his mother and date of birth is not sustainable and requires interference by this court. 10. Counsel further submits that the apparent discrepancy which cannot be ruled out is that his own younger brother who also joined the same Institution and in his certificate of Secondary School Examination, 2012 the name of his mother is shown as Sunita Sharma and his date of birth is shown as 16th September, 1997 but in the Secondary School Examination of the petitioner, the name of his mother has been shown as Madhu Sharma and his date of birth indicated in the certificate is 17th October, 1998 and his father being a Government Servant working as Junior Engineer in all of his service record he has shown his mother's name as Sunita Sharma but the Board has not even cared to examine the record which the petitioner furnished to give effect to the changes, as requested and rejected the same without assigning any reason vide their communication dated 10th June, 2011 (Ann.14) which is wholly arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Reashm Bhargava appearing for the Board apart from the factual matrix of the matter submits that once the petitioner appeared in the examination, the certificate indicates such of the information which was available with the Board and the changes given effect to in the examination form by the Board in respect of name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner was in conformity with the record which was maintained in the office of the Board and further submits that there is no such communication sent to the petitioner and Annexure-14 has been addressed to the Principal of the Institution and the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to assail the impugned communication and in support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, AIR 1963 SC 395 ; M/s.Binani Zinc Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1996 (3) WLC (Raj.) 203 ; and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Manju Jain & Ors., 2010 (9) SCC 157 and further submits that according to the Reg.5(7), after the student appeared in the examination no change can be given effect to as such according to him no error has been committed by the respondent in declining the request made by the Principal vide their communication impugned herein dated 10th June, 2011. The provisions of Reg.5(7) of the Regulations are quoted ad infra:- " 7- ;fn dksbZ fu;fer Nk=@Nk=k viuh tUefrfFk@uke@firk dk uke@ekrk dk uke@miuke esa la'kks/ku ds fy;s lacaf/kr ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks cksMZ ifj{kk vkosnu i= Hkjus dh fcuk foyEc 'kqYd dh vafre frfFk ls iwoZ vkosnu dj ns vkSj mudh tUefrfFk@uke@firk dk uke@ekrk dk uke@miuke esa lq/kkj cksMZ dh foyEc 'kqYd lfgr vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk rd gks tkos rks mijksDr la'kks/kukFkZ mlls foyEc 'kqYd vFkok nqxuk foyEc 'kqYd ugha fy;k tk;sxk c'krsZ fd ifj{kkFkhZ us vkosnu i= fu/kkZfjr frfFk;ksa esa izLrqr dj fn;k gksA blds i'pkr~ ;fn vlk/kkj.k foyEc 'kqYd ls vkosnu Hkjus dh vafre frfFk rd la'kks/ku gksrk gS rks:- 1000@& ( :i;s ,d gtkj ek= ) 'kqYd ds lkFk la'kks/ku fd;k rk ldsxk fdarq ifj{kkFkhZ vkosnu i= vxzsf"kr djus dh leLr frfFk;ksa ds foxr gksus ds i'pkr ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fdlh izdkj dk la'kks/ku fd;k tkrk gS rks og ekU; ugha gksxkA mijksDr la'kks/ku o"kZ 2005 dh ijh{kk ls izHkkoh ekU; gksxkA " 12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance also examined the material available on record. 13. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance also examined the material available on record. 13. It is true that this court in its limited jurisdiction of judicial review is not supposed to record a finding of fact as to whether the date of birth, as claimed by the petitioner is 17th October, 1995 and the name of his mother is Sunita Sharma, as claimed but still what has been urged by counsel for petitioner requires consideration by this court for the reason that errors are always committed by the human being and if the documentary evidence, as placed by the petitioner's father on record and examined by the Principal of the Institution and who recommended to give effect to the changes, as requested in the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner to the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer who too examined and approved the changes, as proposed by the Principal vide its order dated 28th December, 2010 (Ann.5) and pursuant thereto the Principal has given effect to such changes and sent them to the Board who was under obligation to examine and consider the same from the material placed on record as to whether the changes, as proposed in the name of mother and date of birth deserve acceptance, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 14. The submission made by counsel for the respondent that as per the Reg.5(7) once the student appeared in the examination no change can be given effect to, is of no substance for the reason that Reg.5(7) deals with the situation where the student filled the examination form within the time stipulated or with late fee or penalty at a later date, what is being indicated in the application form, looking to the rush of applications received, the change cannot be given effect to but at the same time Reg.5(2) clearly stipulates that such of the students who appeared in the examination even thereafter propose to make application for change in the name of their parents or date of birth or in any other discrepancy, can submit application within a period of 5 years from the date of declaration of result. 15. 15. In the opinion of the court when the application of petitioner was submitted and countersigned by the respective authorities within the period of limitation provided under the Reg.5(2) of the Regulations, at least his request could not be outrightly rejected by the Board vide its communication dated 10th June, 2011 (Ann.14). The provisions of Reg.5(2) of the Regulations are quoted ad infra:- " 2- cksMZ dh fofHkUu ijh{kkvksa esa lfEefyr gksus okys Nk=ks dh tUefrfFk] Nk= ds uke] miuke vFkok firk ds uke@ekrk dk uke@miuke vkfn esa la'kks/ku gsrq lacaf/kr Lohdkj fd;s tk;saxsA blds ckn ds izdj.kksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA " 16. The submission of counsel for respondent that the communication impugned herein was not addressed to the petitioner and as such he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved is wholly bereft of merits for the reason that the correspondence was made by the petitioner through Institution who maintained the record and once the Institution forwarded the request of the petitioner to the Board, certainly the communication was sent by the Board to the Institution declining the request made in fact affect the rights of petitioner who is ultimately aggrieved by the communication sent by the Board and he can certainly assail the same in the present proceed. The judgment, relied upon by counsel for respondent, are not even remotely relevant with the controversy on hand. 17. This court would like to observe and reiterate that this court has not recorded any finding regarding change in the name of mother and date of birth of the petitioner, as proposed and requested by the petitioner but this court expects from the Board to examine the case of the petitioner independently taking into consideration the material which the petitioner placed on record along with his application including the record submitted by the Principal of the Institution and approved by the District Education Officer, copies of which are already on record for taking its necessary decision. 18. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 18. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit fresh application giving effect to the change in the name of his mother and date of birth and annexed all the documentary evidence in support thereof within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent-Board may examine the same and take its decision without being inhibited/influenced from the observations made within a period of 15 days thereafter and the Board may communicate its decision to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he will be at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits.Petition Allowed. *******