JUDGMENT : Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who is resident of Aurangabad, passed out his Senior Secondary School examination i.e. 12th Standard conducted by Central Board of School Education (CBSE) - respondent from Alwar in the State of Rajasthan as his father was in employment at Alwar. The petitioner's result was declared on 25.5.2015, but name was incorrectly mentioned on the mark sheet and migration certificate as “Mr. Akhilesh” instead of his correct name as “K Kamesa Akhilesh Kumar”. The petitioner, therefore, requested the authorities to correct the name, but they expressed inability to do so because of the certificate so referred above. It was advised to get the certificate corrected from the CBSE only. 3. The petitioner, based upon the Rules (Examination Bye-Laws), has taken basic step for correction of name by getting it published in Government official gazette within one year of declaration of his result. In view of Clause 69(1), another condition was that the period prescribed for making an application for correction in name of candidates/fathers/mothers or guardians was one year from the date of declaration of result. It is necessary that application of the candidate is required to be forwarded by Head of Institution with the attested photo copies of school record. The school record of the petitioner reflects correct name as “K Kamesa Akhilesh Kumar”. 4. The petitioner, therefore, initiated the proceedings for correction of his name within one year. The official gazette of Rajasthan Government, however, was published on 2.6.2016. By that time, one year so prescribed in the Rules had expired. That resulted into delay in taking out application in view of Rule 69 within one year. The petitioner, though applied in the above background, respondent - CBSE, however, rejected the application for correction mainly on the ground of delay in filing the application within one year from the date of declaration of result. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, based upon the instructions, submitted that there is no power and/or procedure prescribed to condone the delay and, therefore, for want of specific Rule, they are not empowered to condone the delay. 6. In the present case, we have noted that the petitioner did take first step immediately within one year. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, based upon the instructions, submitted that there is no power and/or procedure prescribed to condone the delay and, therefore, for want of specific Rule, they are not empowered to condone the delay. 6. In the present case, we have noted that the petitioner did take first step immediately within one year. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner when the Government gazette was published on 2.6.2016. The petitioner's school record supports the case of the petitioner, as prayed. In the present case, as there is no power and/or procedure prescribed for condonation of delay. For want of correction of the petitioner's name in the relevant certificates, he would suffer at every stage of his further education, even in day-to-day affair of life for want of correct description in the name. We have noted that prior to 21.6.2011, a period of 10 years was prescribed for candidates to apply for such correction. Now it is restricted to one year. Whatever may be the reason for reduction of this period from 10 years to one year, in these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the case is made out by the petitioner for condonation of delay in taking out such application for correction. The petitioner should not be compelled to suffer because of delay in publication of Government gazette so recorded above. The averments so made in the petition are additional factors, which in our view, are required to be considered, as sufficient case is made out to condone the delay. No one can be rendered remedy-less when it comes to his fundamental, as well as, legal right of education. 7. The opposition by learned counsel appearing for CBSE about non-joinder of educational institution as party to the petition and/or the petition as filed being premature and/or principle of estoppel, in our view, are unacceptable. The petitioner has made out a case and in the interest of justice, as there is no remedy available to the petitioner, we are inclined to allow the writ petition in following terms. 8. Submission is also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the requisite documents are already submitted to the CBSE including the endorsement from the Head of the Institution. O R D E R 9. 8. Submission is also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the requisite documents are already submitted to the CBSE including the endorsement from the Head of the Institution. O R D E R 9. Respondent no.2 is directed to correct the petitioner's name into its record as “K Kamesa Akhilesh Kumar” and issue corrected Migration Certificate and Mark List pertaining to All India Senior School Certificate Examination 2015 for Roll No.1618688 and Secondary School Examination 2013 for Roll No.1121633, pertaining to the petitioner, within one week from today. However, liberty is granted to respondents to verify the record, if required only. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.