JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. SBCWP No. 6120/2019 : 1. Instant writ petition has been preferred by the Central Board of Secondary Education, assailing the award dated 13.3.2019 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat directing it to accept respondents' representation for desired changes after complying with the provisions of Rule 69.1 of the Examination Rules. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that an innocuous order has been passed by the Lok Adalat and the petition has been filed unnecessarily. Conceding that the respondents had filed the petition before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat under misconception of law and as a matter of fact, the same was not maintainable, he however pointed out that a cross writ petition has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 against the Board's refusal to issue corrected mark-sheet. 3. In view of the concession so made, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner Central Board of Secondary Education is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.3.2019 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhilwara is quashed and set aside. It is declared that the Permanent Lok Adalat inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking amendment in the mark-sheet or correction in the name of candidate or his parents, as issuance of mark-sheet or error or omission therein does not fall within the ambit of public utility services, defined and preserved under Section 22A(b) of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987. 4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. SBCWP No. 13846/2019 : 5. This writ petition (cross-petition) has been filed by the petitioners, (petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2 - a minor girl) inter alia with the prayer that the respondent - Board be directed to carry out requisite correction in the mark-sheet of 10th standard of petitioner No. 2. 6. The facts are brief: due to inadvertence, while submitting the form for 10th standard, petitioner no. 2 filled/indicated her father's name with the initials, instead of his full name. Petitioner No. 2 set out name of her father as "J.S. Tomar", in place of "Jitendra Singh Tomar" and consequently, in her mark-sheet of Secondary School Examination, 2018 issued by the CBSE, name of petitioner no. 1 (father of the student) has been shown as "J.S. Tomar. 7. Petitioner No. 2 set out name of her father as "J.S. Tomar", in place of "Jitendra Singh Tomar" and consequently, in her mark-sheet of Secondary School Examination, 2018 issued by the CBSE, name of petitioner no. 1 (father of the student) has been shown as "J.S. Tomar. 7. It has been asserted that petitioner No. 1 is father of petitioner No. 2 and "Jitendra Singh Tomar" is his full name, whereas "J.S. Tomar" is its abbreviated form. On receiving the mark-sheet, petitioners realised this discrepancy and considering that all other documents of petitioner No. 2 contain full name of her father, petitioners thought it expedient to get the same corrected, so as to ward off any confusion/complication in future. 8. While pointing out that petitioners have got a gazette notification dated 1.5.2019 published in the official gazette of the State of Rajasthan, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards various documents placed on record, such as AADHAR card (page No. 27); birth certificate (page No. 30); Admit Card for National Talent Search Examination (NTSE) First Level, 2017-18 and Admit Card for P.D.U. State Talent Search Exam - 2017 (Page 32 & 33) both issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer of the petitioner No. 2, as well as the mark-sheet of her elder sister - Ms. Anubhi Tomar to show and establish that name of petitioner No. 1 is "Jitendra Singh Tomar". 9. Mr. Anil Kumar Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent - Board contended that the relief claimed by the petitioners could neither be granted by Permanent Lok Adalat nor can the same be granted by this Court. According to him, it can be got done only upon getting an appropriate declaration by a competent civil Court by way of filing a suit for declaration. In this regard, he placed high reliance upon Rule 69.1 (ii) of Notification dated 1.2.2018 and argued that the Board has rightly rejected petitioner's request as the examination form and the documents forwarded by the school showed name of petitioner no.1 as "J.S. Tomar". He pointed out that the respondent Board turned down such request relying upon Rule 69.1(ii) of the Examination Rules, 2018, vide communication dated 09.11.2018. He pointed out that the respondent Board turned down such request relying upon Rule 69.1(ii) of the Examination Rules, 2018, vide communication dated 09.11.2018. Rule 69.1(ii) is reproduced hereinfra: "69.1(ii) (Correction in Candidate Name, Mother Name & Father Name) Correction in name to the extent of correction in spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the Candidate's name/Surname, Father's name/Mother's name or Guardian 's name to make it consistent with what is given in the school record or list of candidate (LOC) submitted by the school may be made. Application for correction in name of Candidate/Father's/Mother's/Guardian's name will be considered only within Five years of the date of declaration of result provided the application of the candidate is forwarded by the Head of Institution with the following attested documents: a. True Copy of Admission forms filled in by the parents at the time of admission duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution. b. True Copy of the School Leaving Certificates of the previous school submitted by the parents of the candidate at the time of admission duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution. c. True Copy of the portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register of the school where the entry has been made in respect of the candidate, duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution. d. The Board may effect necessary corrections after verification of the original records of the school and on payment of the prescribed fee. This rule will be applicable to all cases after Class X/XII 2015 examination onwards." 10. Having read the provision aforesaid, Mr. Khatri contended that the petitioner No. 2 is seeking change in her father's name, which cannot be done as per rule 69.1(ii) and else it can be done, if a decree from competent Civil Court is obtained, as provided under Rule 69.1 (I), which reads thus:- "69.1(i) (Change in Candidate Name, Mother Name & Father Name) Applications regarding changes in name of surname of candidates will 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. In cases of change in documents after the Court orders caption will be mentioned on the document "CHANGE ALLOWED IN NAME/FATHER'S NAME/MOTHER'S NAME/GUARDIAN'S NAME FROM ________ TO ____ ON (DATED) ______ AS PER COURT ORDER NO. In cases of change in documents after the Court orders caption will be mentioned on the document "CHANGE ALLOWED IN NAME/FATHER'S NAME/MOTHER'S NAME/GUARDIAN'S NAME FROM ________ TO ____ ON (DATED) ______ AS PER COURT ORDER NO. ______ DATED ______." 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is to be noted that in response to the request made by petitioner No. 2, for correcting the error/discrepancy in name of her father, she moved the concerned school, in which she was studying, which in turn, forwarded her case to the respondent Board for doing the needful, but the same was flatly refused by communication dated 09.11.2018. 13. In considered opinion of this Court it is not a case of change of name at all - rather it is a case of amendment/rectification in the name. The expression "J.S." is nothing, but abbreviated form of "Jitendra Singh". Neither clause 69.1(i) nor 69.1(ii) of the notification dated 1.2.2018 have any role to play. 14. The respondents' contention that the petitioners should file a civil suit for declaration is not tenable. Requiring the petitioners to undertake the cumbersome process of filing a civil suit is unwarranted. It is a simple case of amendment of the name of petitioner No. 1 and as such, the declaration as desired by the respondent - Board is not required. 15. The petitioners have already got a notification published in the official Gazette (Annex. 5) in this regard. 16. Petitioners have placed enough material, duly noticed in para no. 4 above, a perusal thereof leave no room or scope for doubt that petitioner No. 2 is entitled to get her father's name corrected in her mark-sheet of Secondary School Examination, 2018 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education and the objections raised by the respondent - Board in this regard are hyper-technical and unsustainable. 17. It is to be noted that in all the above referred documents, not only name of petitioner no. 1 has been shown as Jitendra Singh Tomar, even name of his wife and mother of petitioner No. 2 has been shown (Babita Tomar), which furthers or strengthens the case of the petitioners. 18. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the forms of the Board are filled by students of tender age or adolescents. 1 has been shown as Jitendra Singh Tomar, even name of his wife and mother of petitioner No. 2 has been shown (Babita Tomar), which furthers or strengthens the case of the petitioners. 18. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the forms of the Board are filled by students of tender age or adolescents. If due to lack of vigilance, if the petitioner/petitioners has/have filled the name of her father as "J.S. Tomar" instead of "Jitendra Singh Tomar", the Board ought to have amended it. Petitioners cannot be alleged to have taken any advantage by getting "J.S. Tomar" inscribed in the mark-sheet, in place of "Jitendra Singh Tomar". 19. Hence, the writ petition is allowed; order/communication dated 9.11.2018 (Annex. 3) is quashed. The respondent-Board is directed to amend the mark-sheet dated 29.5.2018 (Annex. 1) of the petitioner No. 2 and issue her fresh mark-sheet showing her father's name as "Jitendra Singh Tomar". 20. For this purpose, the petitioners shall appear in the Regional Office of the CBSE, Ajmer on 1.10.2019, alongwith the originals of the above referred documents. The Dy. Secretary/Regional Officer of the Board or its concerned officer at Ajmer shall verify the facts noted above from the original documents and issue a fresh/amended mark-sheet to the petitioner no. 2 within a period of 15 days. 21. The present writ petition has been decided in view of the peculiar facts involved herein, particularly because the petitioners had earlier approached Permanent Lok Adalat for correction of the name of petitioner no. 1 and Lok Adalat has passed an award. The present petitioners have filed a cross-writ petition alongwith the relevant documents, for which this Court proceeded to decide the petitioners' entitlement/rights, instead of relegating them to take appropriate remedies. It is however made clear that the present order shall be a precedent only for the question that innocuous/trivial amendments in the names or other particulars can be carried out by the Board itself. It shall however not be a precedent to the effect that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for the purpose of change/correction in the name, surname, date of birth or other particulars of a student.