JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner vide CBSE/RO(M)/CORRN/REJECTION/2017/9371, dated 16.03.2017, for correction of her name from Prameela to Venkata Visalakshi in the Grade Sheet cum Certificate bearing Roll No.410970/2016 and Migration Certificate of her minor son, Devi Jagannadh Kotha, issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that her son has appeared for All India Secondary School Education in the year 2016 with Roll No.410970 and he completed his All India Secondary School Education with 8 Grade Points and he was issued the certificate with registration No.M615/06265/0011 and when he received the certificate, the petitioner came to know that her name was wrongly mentioned in the column of mother’s name in the certificate and immediately the fact was brought to the notice of the school authorities. Then an application was submitted to the 2nd respondent by duly complying with all the formalities along with the requisite forms for the purpose of necessary corrections to be made. The 2nd respondent has refused the request made by the petitioner vide order dated 16.03.2017. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the application was submitted by the petitioner within one year as per the provisions under Section 69 (1) (ii) of the bye-law, the petitioner ought to have followed the procedure under Section 69 (1) (i) of bye laws of the examination notification, file No.CBSE/coord/EC-31-03/2015, dated 25.06.2015, which reads as under: “The application 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 publication of the result of the candidate.” 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has submitted an application within one year from the date of declaration of the result of her son, but, the proviso under Section 69 (1) (i) of the bye-laws is applicable only to change the name of the candidates, but not the names of the father or mother or guardian of the candidate. The amended rule reads above is only meant for the change of name of the candidates. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Central Board of Secondary Education-Controller of examinations has issued circular with regard to limitation for the cases pertaining to correction in date of birth and correction in candidate, mother and father name, from one to five years. It reads as follows: “This is in partial modification of No.CBSE/COORD/EC-31-03/2015 Dated 25.06.2015 wherein it was mentioned that correction in date of birth and correction in candidate, mother and father name shall be entertained by the Board only within one year of the date declaration of result. Limitation of cases of correction in Candidate, Mother and Father Name/correction in date of birth has been revised. Revised time limit will be 5 years from date of declaration of result and it will be applicable to all cases after Class X/XII 2015 examination onwards. 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.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondents while placing reliance on the above circular submits that the petitioner has to file an application for correction of her name within one year from the date of declaration of the result. But as per the circular, the limitation period for correction of name and date of birth is from one year to five years. 8. The present application appears to have been filed on 07.12.2016 whereas the results were declared in the month of March 2016. However, in view of the recent circular dated 10.11.2017 referred to above, the application filed by the petitioner is maintainable. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order of rejection dated 16.03.2017, and directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and pass orders within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.