Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 762 (UTT)

Avneesh Gahtori @ Champak Gahtori v. Secretary, Uttarakhand Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad

2016-10-24

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has just completed his B.Tech. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, as the respondent No. 1 – Uttarakhand Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad has refused to change the name of the petitioner from Champak Gahtori to Avneesh Gahtori. 3. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner in his High School and Intermediate School is Champak Gahtori S/o Mohan Chandra Gahtori and now the petitioner wants to change his name as Avneesh Gahtori S/o Mohan Chandra Gahtori. This name (Champak Gahtori) has been given to him by his parents when he was an infant and now he finds that his name is such that after he is ridiculed by his colleagues and friends. Hence, he wants to change his name. In order to change his name he had already moved an application before respondent No. 1 – Uttarakhand Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, which has been rejected vide order dated 20.05.2016, which is presently under challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already published his name in the Gazette notification dated 24 January to 30 January, 2015 and moreover, the petitioner has also issued Voter ID, Adhaar, Driving Licence etc. by the authorities concerned in the name of Avneesh Gahtori (new name), therefore, there is no hurdle to the authority concerned to change his name. 5. The counsel for respondent No. 1 – Mr. N.S. Negi has relied upon Regulation 27(B) of Chapter 12 of the Rules framed under the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 wherein firstly the applicant must move such application within three years after issuance of certificate of Intermediate, and whereas the certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 2009, the application was moved by the petitioner in the year 2014. Hence it is beyond time. Moreover, the High School certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 2007. Further the condition, which is applicable for changing the name, according to the respondent, is that this can only be done when there is something particularly annoying or defamatory, or abusive regarding the name and this again is not the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the High School certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 2007. Further the condition, which is applicable for changing the name, according to the respondent, is that this can only be done when there is something particularly annoying or defamatory, or abusive regarding the name and this again is not the case of the petitioner. There are other conditions as well, which the petitioner has to fulfill, as he has to give publication in newspapers at three different dates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, as of now, has already given publication in two different dates in two newspapers. 6. Having heard the rival parties it is directed that the petitioner shall apply afresh before the authority concerned, however, it is made clear that as far as defamatory and abusive part of the name is concerned, that is totally subjective and in case respondent/authority finds that there is no harm in changing the name of the petitioner provided no other benefits like reservation in service etc. can be claimed by the petitioner, there is no reason why it should not be done. There is absolutely no reason why respondent has refused to change the name, provided it meets all conditions such as notification at three different dates in any newspaper etc. As far as delay part is concerned, the same is liable to be condoned. Let the needful be done within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed.