JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondent Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer ('Board') to make necessary correction in the name of petitioner's father as 'Sukha Ram Soni' in the marksheets of Secondary Examination, Senior Secondary Examination and other relevant records and further direction to issue new mark-sheets of Secondary Education and Senior Secondary Education with corrected name of petitioner's father. 2. The present writ petition has arisen in the circumstances that the name of petitioner's father, which is claimed to be "Sukha Ram Soni" was indicated as "Sukh Raj Soni" in the school records and, consequently, in the mart-sheets pertaining to Secondary and Senior Secondary Examinations; when the above discrepancy appears to have been noticed by the petitioner, the petitioner got the same corrected at the school level from State Level Examination Management Society (DIET), Churu and whereafter alongwith other supporting documents i.e. the Family Ration Card, Aadhar Card, Voter Identity Card, Pass Book, Birth Certificate, OBC Certificate applied to the respondent Board for correction of his father's name, which prayer was rejected, as the same was not made within the prescribed period of two years. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent Board, wherein, it has indicated that the father's name of the petitioner was altered in the school records from Sukh Raj Soni to Sukha Ram Soni subsequently and that the documents initially indicate the name, which is entered in the mark-sheets, issued by the Board; reliance was placed on the procedure pertaining to the correction in the mark-sheets and it was contended that the procedure laid down has not been followed; reliance was also placed on the provision, whereby, the correction could only be made within a period of two years. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in denying the correction in the father's name of the petitioner; the father's name of the petitioner is Sukha Ram Soni, however, the mark-sheets pertaining to the Secondary and Senior Secondary Examinations indicate the same to be Sukh Raj Soni; it was submitted that on account of the said discrepancy, the petitioner would suffer immensely for no fault of his and, therefore, the respondents be directed to correct the said mark-sheets. 5. 5. Reliance was placed on Vivek Sharma v. Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education & Anr. : 2013 WLC (Raj.) 584 and Sanjay Kumar v. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4604/2013 decided on 14.10.2014 by Jaipur Bench of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the alteration in the mark-sheets of Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations cannot be done for mere asking and the procedure prescribed in this regard is very elaborate and as the petitioner has not complied with the said procedure including the fact that he has approached the Board after two years, the application was rightly rejected. 7. Reliance was placed on Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Md. Sarifuz Zaman & Ors. : (2003) 12 SCC 408 . 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. There is no doubt that the mark-sheets of Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations issued by the Board and the contents therein pertaining to the name, father's name, mother's name and date of birth of the candidate are quite sacrosanct, inasmuch as, the same are taken as proof of the above particulars and for maintaining the value/importance of the said mark-sheets, the elaborate and rigid procedure provided by the Board is wholly justified; if the particulars in the mark-sheets are permitted to be altered for mere asking, the value/importance attached to the said documents would be lost. However, it is also true that on account of the importance/value attached to the said documents that, in case the candidate/petitioner/applicant is able to make out a case of correction in the particulars specially with regard to name, father's name and mother's name, the Board on being satisfied, should correct the same; the correction in the date of birth would definitely require stricter parameters compared to the request for change in other particulars. 10. 10. In the present case, no doubt it is true that the name of petitioner's father was entered as Sukh Raj Soni in the Admission Form, Scholar's Register, 8th Board, Secondary and Senior Secondary mark-sheets, however, once the discrepancy came to the notice and/or the said discrepancy affected the petitioner, the necessary corrections were got done in the Admission Form, Scholar's Register and 8th Board mark-sheet, whereafter the petitioner applied to the Board, wherein, it appears on account of non-compliance of the period pertaining to the limitation, the prayer was rejected. 11. This Court in the case of Vivek Sharma (supra) observed that errors are always committed by the human beings and if the documentary evidence, as placed by the petitioner's father on record and examined by the Principal of the Institution, 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 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 deserves acceptance, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and directed the Board to reexamine the whole issue and take a decision. 12. In the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra), which pertained to a case of correction in the date of birth, caste and name of mother the Court directed the Board to complete the exercise of correction of date of birth, caste and mother's name of the petitioner and to undertake the same within a period of one month. 13. So far as the judgment in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam (supra) is concerned, the same pertained to date of birth and Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the rigorous procedure prescribed. 14. 13. So far as the judgment in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam (supra) is concerned, the same pertained to date of birth and Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the rigorous procedure prescribed. 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the law cited at the Bar, it is apparent that the petitioner has undertaken the required procedure for getting the name of his father corrected in the mark-sheets pertaining to the Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations from Sukh Raj Soni to Sukha Ram Soni and the request was conceded by the School Authorities as well as the authority conducting the 8th Board Examination and whereafter the petitioner approached the Board. The Board initially sought for certain documents and thereafter allegedly rejected the prayer orally as having been made after two years. The very fact that the correction is being sought in the name of petitioner's father in the Secondary and Senior Secondary mark-sheets, which from the material placed on record, appears to be a case of error though having been committed long back and must have been noticed by the petitioner/his parents recently, the case of the petitioner did not deserve a outright rejection by the respondent Board merely on account of delay so as to affect his future. 15. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondent Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for correction in the father's name in the marksheets pertaining to Secondary Examination, 2012 (Annexure-6) and Senior Secondary Examination, 2014 (Annexure- ) and other related documents within a period of one month. In case any further documents, other than annexed with the writ petition, are required by the Board, the Board may communicate the requirement to the petitioner. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******