Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 87 (AP)

Aparajitha v. Union of India

2019-06-14

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : G. SHYAM PRASAD, J. 1. This is a writ of mandamus filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent-Central Board of Secondary Education to change the name of the petitioner from Aparajitha M. to 'Aparqjitha Mythili' as per the Aadhaar Card. 2. The mother of the petitioner filed affidavit being the guardian of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is aged about 16 years passed her 10th Standard from 3rd respondent-Pragathi Central School. She made a request to the 3rd respondent institution with regard to the change of her daughter's name in 10th Class Certificate from Aparajitha M. to Aparajitha Mythili. The 2nd respondent vide letter dated 8.6.2018 rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the changes have to be admitted by a Court of law with regard to change the name of the candidate and the same has to be notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed counter stating that the petitioner has applied for correction of her surname vide letter dated 25.5.2018 alongwith Gazette notification dated March 18-24, 2017. The same was rejected on the ground that changes in the name or surname of candidates has to be admitted by the court of law, and notified in the Government Gazette, before the publication of the result of the candidate, as per Rule 69.1(i). The applications regarding the changes in candidate's name, mother's name, father's name and changes in name of surname of the 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 results of the candidate. The petitioner is seeking for change of surname from Aparajitha Musti to Aparajitha Mythili, which is a total change in the surname of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for change of surname. 4. The point for consideration in this matter is whether the petitioner is entitled for change of her name in the light of the amended Rule 69.1(i) of the notification dated 1.2.2018? 5. 4. The point for consideration in this matter is whether the petitioner is entitled for change of her name in the light of the amended Rule 69.1(i) of the notification dated 1.2.2018? 5. The existing Rule under 69.1 (i) reads as under: "(Change in Candidate Name, Mother Name & Father Name) Applications 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 the publication of the result of the candidate." 6. The amended Rule under 69.1(i) reads as under: "(Change in Candidate Name, Mother Name & Father Name) Applications regarding changes in name or 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 candidate 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---------." 7. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent is that in view of the Rule under 69.1(f), the total change in the surname of the petitioner cannot be considered as the petitioner is asking for change of surname from Aparajitha Musti to Aparajitha Mythili. Whereas, the petitioner's name was mentioned as Aparajitha M. in the School certificate as per the List of Candidate (LOC), as such, the Board cannot change the name, which was printed on Board Certificates as per the list of candidates whose names were registered online as submitted by the concerned school. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on catena of decisions and argued that the condition in the above rule of obtaining an order from Court of law for change of name and getting it notified in a Government Gazette is impossible to comply with, as mere is no defendant against whom a civil suit can be filed by the applicant for declaration of her right of change of name. 9. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of High Court of Delhi reported in Navee and others v. CBSE, WP(C) Nos. 9. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of High Court of Delhi reported in Navee and others v. CBSE, WP(C) Nos. 24753-54/2005 dated 21.11.2013 and also placed a reliance on judgment of High Court of Delhi reported in Raunaq Singh Sawhney v. Central Board of Secondary Education, WP(C) No. 2152/2018 dated 5.2.2019, wherein CBSE was directed to issue a revised Marks sheet of Class-X to the petitioner, reflecting the name of his father as "Raminder Singh Sawhney" after surrender of his certificate already issued to him, showing the name of his father reflected as "Raminder S. Sawhney". In another judgment of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranch reported in Neelu Prasad v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, WP(C) No. 2713 of 2016 dated 2.5.2018, the Court directed to change name of the petitioner's daughter 'Avani' as 'Avani Prasad' and her son 'Ayush' as 'ayush Prasad' and accordingly ordered to issue fresh (revised) certificates of Class-X and XII Certificates to them within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In Vanika v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, CWP No. 11315 of 2018, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, had issued a direction to CBSE to issue DMC of Class-X to the petitioner by adding surname "Kansal" to the names of her parents, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In Subham v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, WP(C) No. 1948 of 2017 dated 6.2.2018, wherein, the respondent-CBSE was directed to make necessary correction in the name of the petitioner changing from 'Subham' to 'Shubham Thakur" in his educational certificates of Class-X and Class-XII within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In Para 7 of the judgment it was held as under: "The High Court may issue suitable direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India to render complete justice to a citizen. In the case on hand if the prayer for correction in the name of the petitioner in X Class Marks 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 educational certificates. In the case on hand if the prayer for correction in the name of the petitioner in X Class Marks 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 educational certificates. More so, the corrections 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. 5 dated 5.11.2016 has already been made" Under the circumstances, the respondent CBSE was directed to make necessary correction in the name of the petitioner from "Subham" to "Shubham Thakur" as referred above. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that Rule 69.1(f) has not been followed by approaching a Civil Court for change of petitioner's name, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. On consideration of the decisions referred above, and the facts and circumstances of this case, it is obvious that the petitioner has sought for change of her surname from Aparajitha Musti to Aparajitha Mythili. In this regard, a Gazette notification was made. The Gazette notification clearly shows that the petitioner intended to change her name form Aparajitha Musti to Aparajitha Mythili. There is no change in the main name Aparajitha but the change sought was only in the surname Musti to Mythili. The Gazette notification was admittedly published in the month of March 18 to March 24, of 2017. There is no protest by anybody in connection with the said change in the Gazette notification. Therefore, in the light of the above decisions and in the facts of the present case, it appears that the change of surname is not going to effect interest of anybody, as none appeared for all most two years even after the Gazette publication was made. 12. It is also pertinent to note that the change was sought only in the surname Musti to Mythili. As per X Class Marks List, the surname was shown as Aparajitha M. and she wanted to change it to Aparajitha Mythili. 'Mythili' is the name of the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be any objection from anybody for changing her surname form 'M to 'Mythili'. 13. No doubt, the Gazette publication shows that the surname Musti was changed as Mythili. 'Mythili' is the name of the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be any objection from anybody for changing her surname form 'M to 'Mythili'. 13. No doubt, the Gazette publication shows that the surname Musti was changed as Mythili. As there was no objection from anybody since the date of notification and, since the change sought was only in the surname, and not the full name of the petitioner, as Aparajitha M. mentioned in CBSE Institution was sought to be changed as Aparajitha Mythili, the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the procedure under Rule 69.1(f) has not been followed, is not applicable in this case as it is only expansion of M as Mythili which can be permitted in the light of the decisions referred above. It is also pertinent to note that Gazette publication was made in the year 2017. Till now, no objections have been filed by anybody though the change of name is notified in the Gazette to the public. Even on this ground the petitioner is entitled for change of her surname as she is not seeking for any change in her main name Aparajitha. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent-CBSE to effect the necessary changes in the X Class Certificate and issue a fresh certificate within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.