ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in Memo No. CBSE/RO/PTN/M&M/INC/815/11/2016 dated 21.02.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) communicating the respondent No.4 that the petitioner’s request for correction of his name in the Xth certificate has been rejected by the competent authority being time barred. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to make correction in the name of the petitioner from ‘Shubham’ to ‘Shubham Thakur’ in all educational certificates issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CBSE’), New Delhi. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner passed Xth Board Examination conducted by the CBSE in the year 2011 from Guru Gobind Singh Public School, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. At the time of admission, his name was recorded as ‘Shubham’. Thereafter, he took admission in Lady A Singhania EDNL Academy, Jhalawar, Rajasthan and passed XIIth Board Examination conducted by the CBSE in the year 2013 and at present he is a student of the final year B.Tech Degree Course. In the meantime, he thought proper to add the surname of his father ‘Thakur’ with his name and for that purpose he sworn an affidavit on 05.03.2016, published his changed name in two daily newspapers, namely, The Hindustan, Dhanbad and the Hindustan Times, Ranchi on 14.04.2016. He also executed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate on 01.09.2016 and approached the Government of India for publication of his name from ‘Shubham’ to ‘Shubham Thakur’ in the Official Gazette of the Government of India. Vide Gazette Notification No. 45 dated 05.11.2016, the changed name of the petitioner was published in the Gazette of India, New Delhi informing that henceforth he shall be known as ‘Shubham Thakur’. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned authority of the CBSE for making necessary correction in his mark-sheet and the certificate of 10th Board, however, he was informed that at the first instance Guru Gobind Singh Public School, Bokaro Steel City has to take note of the same and suitably correct the petitioner’s name in the admission register and the admission form and subsequently these corrections have to be forwarded by the said school to the CBSE. Accordingly, the parents of the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent No.4 on 19.01.2017 for making correction in the petitioner’s name in the school records and forward the same to the Regional Office, CBSE, Patna for necessary correction in the mark-sheet and other certificates. The respondent No.4 forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Regional Officer, Regional Office, CBSE, Patna, however, vide impugned letter dated 21.02.2017, the CBSE communicated the respondent No.4 that the request of the petitioner has been rejected being time barred. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the changed name of the petitioner has been accepted by the different Government authorities while issuing his PAN Card, Adhar Card and Driving Licence and in all these documents, the name of the petitioner has been recorded as ‘Shubham Thakur’ and as such if the required correction would not be allowed to be made in his educational certificates, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. He cannot be denied to keep the surname of his father ‘Thakur’ and accordingly to change his name as ‘Shubham Thakur’ particularly, when there is no material change in his name. The change in the name of the petitioner has also been published in the Gazette Notification. Thus, the respondent-CBSE cannot deny the request of the petitioner for correction of his name in the educational certificates. In view of Section 57 of the Adhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the respondents also cannot refuse to change the name of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBSE submits that as per Rule 69.1 of the CBSE Bye Laws, the change in the name or surname of the 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 candidates. The correction in the name of the candidate/father/mother/guardian will be considered only within one year of the date of publication of the result, provided that the application of the candidate is duly forwarded by the Head of the Institution with supporting documents. The name of the petitioner was recorded as ‘Shubham’ in the school records and the same was filled up in the application form and as such the Board has rightly issued the certificates with the said name. The name of the petitioner was recorded as ‘Shubham’ in the school records and the same was filled up in the application form and as such the Board has rightly issued the certificates with the said name. The petitioner had passed Class Xth examination in the year 2011 and Class XIIth examination in the year 2013, but he started taking steps for changing his name in the year 2016 and as such the same has been rightly denied by the CBSE being time barred. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. Initially, the name of the petitioner was recorded as ‘Shubham’ and he passed Xth Board examination in the year 2011 and XIIth Board examination in the year 2013 conducted by the CBSE and his certificates were issued recording his name as ‘Shubham’. In the year 2016, the petitioner added the surname ‘Thakur’ with his name and his changed name ‘Shubham Thakur’ was also published in the Official Gazette of the Government of India vide Gazette Notification No. 45 dated 05.11.2016. The petitioner made an application to the CBSE through his School i.e. the respondent No.4 for correction of his name in the Xth Board mark-sheet as well as the certificate, however, his request was rejected by the CBSE on the ground that the time limit for necessary correction is one year. During the course of argument, one circular of the CBSE being No. CBSE/Coord/AS(C)/112576 dated 10.11.2017 has been placed before this Court whereby, the time limit for making correction in the name of the student/father/mother or date of birth has been extended from one year to five years. In the said circular, it is explicitly prescribed that the revised limitation period shall also be applicable to current ongoing cases already received in ROs/HQ, pending in various Courts as well as received now onwards. In view of the said circular, the petitioner is entitled for correction of his name in the XIIth Board Certificate, as he passed XIIth Board Examination in the year 2013 and his case was pending before this Court at the time of coming into force of the circular dated 10.11.2017. In view of the said circular, the petitioner is entitled for correction of his name in the XIIth Board Certificate, as he passed XIIth Board Examination in the year 2013 and his case was pending before this Court at the time of coming into force of the circular dated 10.11.2017. Now the position is that the petitioner is entitled to the correction of his name in the XIIth Board Certificate in view of the circular dated 10.11.2017, but at the same time, his request for correction of his name in the Xth Board Certificate is time barred. 6. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “22. The aforesaid has, therefore, to be avoided and I have no doubt that a High Court would be within its jurisdiction to modify the punishment/penalty by moulding the relief, which power it undoubtedly has, in view of a long line of decisions of this Court, to which reference is not deemed necessary, as the position is well settled in law. It may, however, be stated that this power of moulding relief in cases of the present nature can be invoked by a High Court only when the punishment/penalty awarded shocks the judicial conscience. 23. It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh case that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide as which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter.” 7. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide as which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter.” 7. The High Court may issue suitable direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to render complete justice to a citizen. In the case in hand, if the prayer for correction in the name of the petitioner in Class-X mark-sheet/certificate is denied on the ground of delay, it will not resolve the issue. Thus, in the interest of justice, the name of the petitioner is required to be corrected in all his educational certificates. More so, the correction sought to be made is merely an addition of the surname for which publication in the Official Gazette of the Government of India vide Gazette Notification No. 45 dated 05.11.2016 has already been made. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned letter as contained in Memo No. CBSE/RO/PTN/M&M/INC/815/11/2016 dated 21.02.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent-CBSE is directed to make necessary correction in the name of the petitioner from ‘Shubham’ to ‘Shubham Thakur’ in his educational certificates of Class-X and Class-XII within a period of three months form the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.