JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. J. S. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. K. V. Shelat for the respondents-Central Board of Secondary Education. 2. The petitioner-Petel Arth Rajendrakumar, who is minor, has filed the present petition through his natural guardian and father, seeking a direction against the first and second respondents-Central Board of Secondary Education to rectify their record and change the name of the petitioner from 'Arthkumar Rajeshkumar Patel' to correct name as 'Patel Arth Rajendrakumar'. It is prayed to change the name as above as per the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 3. It is the case of the petitioner inter alia that his name was correctly mentioned in the birth certificate, but on account of an unintentional mistake, it was wrongly recorded at the time of taking admission in the school. It is stated by the petitioner that when he was recently preparing for obtaining a passport, the said error was noticed to be existing in the school records. 3.1 The petitioner appears to have approached the school, but according to the petitioner, the school stated that the change could be effected only after the petitioner gets an order from the court of law. It appears that the petitioner thereafter approached the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1303 of 2015. The said application was allowed by learned Magistrate as per his order dated 02.02.2016. The petitioner’s name changed as per the above order, was gazetted in the Central Government Gazette dated 12.03.2016. 3.2 When the petitioner approached the respondent school for effecting the change of his name in school record on the basis of the aforesaid order of learned Judicial Magistrate, in response he received a letter dated 11.05.2016 from the second respondent. The said respondent relied on Rule 69.1 of CBSE relating to correction and change in name and record of birth. Learned advocate for the respondents made available a copy of notification dated 25.06.2015 to show the text of the said Rule as amended. The Rule provides that the applications regarding changes in name or surname of candidates may be considered, provided the changes have been admitted by the court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate. 4. The Rule provides that the applications regarding changes in name or surname of candidates may be considered, provided the changes have been admitted by the court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate. 4. While the Rule stated as above, the request of the petitioner for change of his name in the records was not acceded to by the respondent-CBSE on the ground stated in communication dated 11.05.2016. What was stated in the said communication was that the competent authority would not consider the request for change in the candidate’s name for the reason that “Board was neither a party in this case nor any direction/order is made to the Board to carry out such correction/change.” In other words, the change in the name was refused by the respondent Board on the ground that it was not a party before the Magistrate who passed the order. 5. The fact shows that the petitioner had approached the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking an order for getting the name changed. The Criminal Misc. Application of the petitioner resulted into the order of the Magistrate whereby the correction as prayed for by the petitioner was allowed and ordered. It was not permissible for the first and second respondents not to accept the order of learned Judicial Magistrate and not to effect correction in their record. The order of the Court which is not set aside in the competent appeal or is not varied or reversed, remains binding and operative. The order for change in the name was intended to operate to seek correction in the school records of the first and second respondents. Complying with the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was a legal duty not discharged by the respondent-CBSE. 5.1 When an order of the Court or any judicial order is passed, but not complied with, a writ of mandamus would lie to make the authority to act in accordance with such order. An order of the court unless set aside or reversed, creates a legal right in favour of a party in whose benefit it is passed. It creates a corresponding legal duty for obeying and complying by those against whom it operates and is intended. In the facts of the present case, a clear legal right was created in favour of the petitioner. It creates a corresponding legal duty for obeying and complying by those against whom it operates and is intended. In the facts of the present case, a clear legal right was created in favour of the petitioner. The case turns out to be a fit case for issuance of writ of mandamus. 6. The prayer in the petition therefore deserves to be granted. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer 7(A) in the petition. 7. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to rectify their record by effecting change in the name of the petitioner from “Arthkumar Rajeshkumar Patel” to correct as “Patel Arth Rajendrakumar” in compliance of the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1303 of 2015, on the petitioner surrendering the original mark-sheet. Direct service is permitted. Petition allowe.