JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. Chawhan, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri S. Ghate, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. On 09.03.2018, notice for final disposal was issued in the present matter, hence, in view of said orders and with consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner is a minor being represented through her father and natural guardian. 3. Parties have given us relevant dates, and there is no dispute about it. It is therefore, not necessary for us to mention the same. 4. For the purpose of present controversy, suffice it to mention that minor daughter passed S.S.C. Examination from respondent no.1 Board and she appeared in that examination in April, 2016. Her father on 13.05.2016, after following proper procedure, changed his name from 'Shekhar' to 'Chandrashekhar'. It is the case of the petitioner that in other records, name of father was always Chandrashekhar. After the change was gazetted in May, 2016, petitioner informed the same through her father to respondent no.2 School. Respondent no.2 School, in turn entered into correspondence with respondent no.1 Board. There was reminder also and ultimately, by the impugned communication dated 21.02.2017, said request came to be rejected, as it was received after stipulated time. Petitioner has stated that this communication was received by her belatedly and therefore, petition has been filed in this Court on 08.03.2018. 5. By inviting attention to relevant notification which contains procedure to be followed in this respect, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that Rule 69.1[i] is not attracted here and the situation is covered by Rule 69.1[ii]. He also points out that the result of S.S.C. Examination was declared on 28.05.2016, and respondent no.2 School have forwarded the request for consideration on 06.06.2016. 6. Shri S. Ghate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, supports the case of petitioner. 7. Shri P. Chawhan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 CBSC has invited our attention to request made by father of petitioner to respondent no.2 School for correcting name. He submits that the application dated 31.05.2016, moved by the petitioner unequivocally declares that he has changed his name from 'Shekhar Barde' to 'Chandrashekhar Barde', vide State Gazette Notification in 2016. 8. Shri P. Chawhan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 CBSC has invited our attention to request made by father of petitioner to respondent no.2 School for correcting name. He submits that the application dated 31.05.2016, moved by the petitioner unequivocally declares that he has changed his name from 'Shekhar Barde' to 'Chandrashekhar Barde', vide State Gazette Notification in 2016. 8. According to him, in this situation, it is not a case of correction of either spelling error or typographical mistake and, hence, the request is rightly rejected. 9. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we have perused papers. Father of petitioner has on 01.06.2016, sworn an affidavit mentioning that in school records of her daughter, his name has been registered as Shekhar Barde, and he would like to correct it as Chandrashekhar Barde. School has categorically informed respondent no.1 Board. With the result, after gazette notification, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, there is no person by name 'Shekhar Barde' and that person is substituted by or known by a name 'Chandrashekhar Barde'. 10. In the impugned communication dated 21.02.2017, respondent no.1 CBSC has invited attention of respondent no.2 School to Rule 69[1] [ii] of the Amended Examination Bye laws and informing that an application for change can be considered after the change is admitted by the Court of law and notified in government gazette before the date of declaration of result of the candidate. It is pointed out that the request for change of name made by the petitioner was received after stipulated time, and therefore, it has been rejected. Perusal of the notification dated 25.08.2015, which amends examination byelaws, reveals that Rule 69[1] [i] before amendment, specifically envisaged case of change in name of candidate/father/mother/guardian. After amendment, only change contemplated in amended Rule is, in the name or surname of the candidate. 11. If name or surname of candidate is to be corrected, CBSC requires the change to be accepted by the Court of law and notified in government gazette before publication of result of the candidate. 12. Here admittedly the candidate Manali (petitioner) is not seeking any change either in her name or in her surname. 13. Rule 69[1][ii] before amendment dealt with correction of spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the candidates' name, surname, fathers' name, mothers' name or guardians' name. 12. Here admittedly the candidate Manali (petitioner) is not seeking any change either in her name or in her surname. 13. Rule 69[1][ii] before amendment dealt with correction of spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the candidates' name, surname, fathers' name, mothers' name or guardians' name. After amendment, the categories of relatives mentioned earlier remain same. Later part of the amendment requires an application to be made within a period of one year of the date of declaration of result. It is not in dispute that Manali has applied within the said period. 14. Effort made by respondent no.1 before this Court to urge/contend that this is not a case of correction of spelling error or factual typographical error, now needs consideration. 15. "Spelling errors" find mention separately and "factual typographical error" is by itself an independent head under which a mistake may fall. Thus, Rule 69.1[ii] recognizes two types of errors or mistakes. Those errors or mistakes are 'spelling errors' and 'factual typographical errors'. 16. Rule 69[1][i] does not speak of a nature or type of errors. It permits change in name or surname of the candidate. It therefore, is aimed at correcting the mistake which has occurred so as to bring the records of CBSC in consonance with the Rule. Rule 69[1][ii] speaks of changes in the name of father, mother, guardian of such students. Words 'factual typographical' therefore, covers even the case in which factually there are some errors. Spelling errors may be an inadvertent or technical mistake, which may take place due to pronunciation of a particular name or surname. (proper noun) 17. Proper noun may carry different spelling and therefore, error or committing mistakes while spelling such proper nouns are more. We therefore, find that the type of errors provided for in Rule 69[1][ii], are of different and distinct nature. There is no overlapping and words used while describing the same are not synonyms. 18. When intention behind making such a provision is kept in mind, it is clear that necessary correction to bring the truth on record are permitted by these byelaws. If contention of Shri P.Chawan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 is accepted, then the byelaws do not deal with the case in which an adult father or mother of a child changes his/her name. There is no bar in changing the same, and respondent no.1 can not prohibit it. If contention of Shri P.Chawan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 is accepted, then the byelaws do not deal with the case in which an adult father or mother of a child changes his/her name. There is no bar in changing the same, and respondent no.1 can not prohibit it. Therefore, it also cannot regulate it. There is no question of any time limit or limitation period, at least when a minor student also has no role in such change of name. 19. Here, we find that the effort of petitioner is to substitute correct name of her father, on record of respondent no.1. The request therefore, ought to have been dealt with under Rule 69[1][ii]. 20. We therefore, find the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. We direct respondent no.1 to take on record name as 'Chandrashekhar' and substitute it in place of 'Shekhar', as fathers' name of present petitioner. Necessary correction be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. 21. With these observations and orders, we partly allow the Writ Petition and dispose of the same. Needles to mention that after such correction, the documents like marksheet, migration, etc., required by the petitioner, shall be issued to her with necessary correction, within next two weeks and as per law. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. 22. Certified copy expedited.