ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, i.e., Ajay Kumar and Harsh Chaudhary, who are father and son respectively. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved from the order dated 10th May, 2019, whereby the respondents rejected prayer of the petitioner No. 2 - Harsh Chaudhary to make correction in the name of his father in the mark sheet of Class - X. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner No. 2 - Harsh Chaudhary passed his Class - X examination in the year 2018 from the Central Board of Secondary Education (in short "CBSE") - the respondent No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 - Harsh Chaudhary, while filling the examination form for appearing in Class - X, erroneously mentioned name of his father as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and accordingly, he was issued mark sheet of Class - X by showing his father's name as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary. 4. The petitioners have pleaded that name of the petitioner No. 1 in his Adhar Card and in the birth certificate of the petitioner No. 2 is indicated as Ajay Kumar. 5. The petitioners have pleaded that immediately after declaration of result of Class - X, the application was given to the school authorities, i.e., the respondent No. 4 for correction in the name of father of petitioner No. 2 as Ajay Kumar. The application, so sent by the school authorities, has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10th May, 2019 by making a reference of Clause 69.1(i) & (ii) of Central Board of Secondary Education Bylaws relating to change of name/correction, etc. 6. The petitioners have pleaded that necessary exercise of getting change of name in the gazette notification was also undertaken and such gazette notification was published on 12th July, 2018, wherein the petitioner No. 1 - Ajay Kumar specifically has given the declaration that the mark sheet of his son of secondary class his name was wrongly mentioned as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and actual & correct name was Ajay Kumar. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that correction of the name of the petitioner No. 2 has wrongly been declined by the respondents and the petitioners have carried out necessary formalities for correction of the name. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that correction of the name of the petitioner No. 2 has wrongly been declined by the respondents and the petitioners have carried out necessary formalities for correction of the name. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner No. 2 to give wrong information with respect to his father's name and it was an error, which was committed by the petitioner No. 2, who was student of Class - X while filling the examination form. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that all the documents, with regard to name of the petitioner No. 1, show his name as Ajay Kumar and as such, there is no undue advantage or to mislead the authorities, father's name was given as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary while filling the form. 10. Learned counsel also submitted that reference of Rule 69.1(i) & (ii) also does not lead to a situation where correction in the candidate's father's name cannot be made by the CBSE. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the Rules, which have been framed regarding change of name, etc. are not statutory in nature and they are directory only and as such, in a given case if proper explanation is given, the CBSE should permit change of name of the candidate or his/her father's or mother's name. 12. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the cases of Jitendra Singh Tomar & Anr. Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13846/2019), Akshaya Murali Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15754/2018) and Pankaj Prem Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1114/2012) as well as the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mangi Bai Suman Vs. Board of Secondary Education & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18689/2018). 13. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. M.S. Raghav, appearing for the respondent CBSE, submits that the impugned order dated 10th May, 2019 passed by the respondents is a valid and legal order and the authorities, after considering the provisions of By-laws 69.1(i) & (ii), have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner No. 2 to change the name of his father. 14. M.S. Raghav, appearing for the respondent CBSE, submits that the impugned order dated 10th May, 2019 passed by the respondents is a valid and legal order and the authorities, after considering the provisions of By-laws 69.1(i) & (ii), have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner No. 2 to change the name of his father. 14. Learned counsel also referred to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent/s and submitted that whatever information was received from the school of the petitioner No. 2, the record reflected that name of father of the petitioner No. 2 as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and on the basis of the record, maintained by the school, the authorities have accordingly recorded name of the father of the petitioner No. 2 as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary. 15. Learned counsel also submitted that the rule relating to change of name as per Clause 69.1(i) does not make the petitioner No. 2 entitled, as change in the name has to be notified in the government gazette before publication of result of the candidate and in the present case, result of the petitioner No. 2 has been declared on 29th May, 2018 and the gazette notification was issued on 12th July, 2018. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Clause 69.1(H), correction in the father's name can be allowed if the school record or list of candidates submitted by the school contain the name, which is not consistent with the record and as such, the record of the petitioner No. 2, being maintained by the school had shown his father's name as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, thus correction was not permissible as per Clause 69.1(H). 17. Learned counsel also submitted that action of the respondents cannot be termed arbitrary in any manner and change of name of a candidate or his father's name at belated stage, should not be permitted by this Court. 18. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court in the case of Sushadhri Gautam Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14035/2019) decided vide order dated 24th September, 2019 has permitted the change in father's name, however, the candidate was asked to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and Rs.10,000/- with Regional Office, Ajmer. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent CBSE - Mr. Central Board of Secondary Education (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14035/2019) decided vide order dated 24th September, 2019 has permitted the change in father's name, however, the candidate was asked to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and Rs.10,000/- with Regional Office, Ajmer. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent CBSE - Mr. M.S. Raghav also submitted with regard to having an opportunity of seeking correction in the name of father of the petitioner No. 2, as the petitioner No. 2 had filled the examination form of Class - IX and was issued admit card and thereafter, record had reflected the name of father of the petitioner No. 2 as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and accordingly, in the mark sheet, name of father of the petitioner No. 2, was shown as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary. 20. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 21. This Court finds that the petitioner No. 1 - Ajay Kumar, who is father of the petitioner No. 2, has shown his name in Adhar Card, birth certificate and official gazette as Ajay Kumar and if the name of the petitioner No. 1 was mentioned as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary in the examination form filled by the petitioner No. 2, the same cannot be intentional act on his part to mislead the authorities. The insertion of the word "Chaudhary" in the name of petitioner No. 1 cannot in any way reflect the correct position of the petitioner No. 2, as all the record, which has been maintained by the petitioner No. 1, has shown him to be as Ajay Kumar and further, the gazette notification was also published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 12th July, 2018. 22. This Court also finds that intention of a young student, who fills the form, can not be to mislead the authorities by giving wrong particular of his parents and if inadvertently error is committed in bona fide manner, it cannot be assumed that the student has tried to give wrong information or mislead the authorities. 23. This Court further finds that that the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Jitendra Singh Tomar & Anr. 23. This Court further finds that that the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Jitendra Singh Tomar & Anr. (supra) has also noted the fact that forms of the Board are filled by the students at tender age or adolescents and due to lack of vigilance, if some candidate has filled the name of his father not in full form but in abbreviation, such person cannot be alleged to have taken any advantage by giving the name in abbreviated form and as such, the Court allowed the writ petition permitting correction in name of father of the candidates. 24. This Court also finds that in the case of Sushadhri Gautam (supra), this Court relying on a judgment in the case of Arpit Agarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4362/2017), gave direction to change the name of father of the candidate by permitting to give the full name of the father of candidate instead of the name given in the abbreviated form. 25. The objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent CBSE that Clause 69.1(i) & (ii) will not cover the case of the petitioners, as the petitioners have taken the exercise of publication of notification in the official gazette after declaration of result and further, the record was maintained by the school, in which, the name of the father of the petitioner No. 2 was always shown as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, this Court finds that the Rule does not prohibit to make correction in the name, if proper explanation is given by a candidate and further, no undue advantage is taken by change of name. 26. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10th May, 2019 is quashed and set aside. 27. The respondents are directed to carry out the required exercise for changing the name of father of the petitioner No. 2 as Ajay Kumar in place of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary in the mark sheet and other documents issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education. 28. The exercise shall be carried out within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.