JUDGMENT : The petitioners in these cases seek that the names entered by the Educational Department in their SSLC books be altered, in terms of the publication made by them in the official gazette. They say that they are desires in carrying different name than what was entered in their educational records and that this is a right vested in them, going by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav vs. C.B.S.E [ 2021 (3) KLT 711 . 2. The petitioners say that for this purpose, apart from the publication in the official gazette, they have also obtained other necessary documents from the competent Authorities, including “one and the same” certificate from the competent Village Officer; but that the Commissioner for Government Examinations is refusing to even consider the request, much less accede to it. 3. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Government be ordered to consider their request for alteration of their names in the educational records and that this be directed to be done in their favour, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 4. I have heard Sri. M. Narendra Kumar – learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases and Sri. P.M. Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents. 5. The response of Sri. P.M. Manoj to the afore request of the petitioners, was that there is no procedure yet stipulated by the Government for alteration or correction of name in the School Examinations records and Certificates of a person, though clerical and spelling errors can be so corrected. He showed me that, however, what is attempted by the petitioners in these cases is not to correct their names but to completely alter it, by substituting with new names, which has no bearing to the original; and therefore, that Government is not in a position to accede to their request. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 6. The dialectical contentions of the parties being so recorded, there is little doubt that what the petitioners are attempting is not to correct their names but to substitute them with completely new ones. It is this which is now being opposed by the official respondents, saying that there is no procedure stipulated to enable this. 6. The dialectical contentions of the parties being so recorded, there is little doubt that what the petitioners are attempting is not to correct their names but to substitute them with completely new ones. It is this which is now being opposed by the official respondents, saying that there is no procedure stipulated to enable this. I am told that the applicable Rules and Regulations enable a person to make corrections in his name without altering it completely, but that substitution of the existing name by a new one is not permissible. (at least it not being permitted or sanctioned.) 7. The afore stand of the official respondents, at this point of time, certainly would require a re-look, particularly after the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in Jigya Yadav's case (supra). In fact, a learned Judge of this Court had also taken a similar view in Kashish Gupta vs. Central Board of Secondary Education [ 2020 (2) KLT 796 ] and the declarative and interpretative ambit of the observations in these judgments would certainly concede, no doubt, that if any individual desires to change his name, as per the procedure mandated in law, it would not lie in the mouth of the official establishment to deny the same, since it is their constitutional right to be known by the name they choose. 8. That said, of course, malafide exercise of such liberties will have to be checked and obviously, therefore, it is now for the Government and the official respondents to make sure that there is a proper procedure enlivened for this purpose, so that not merely these cases, but also in the case of persons who make such request in future can be tested and considered. Therefore, the contention of the respondents, that there is no procedure as of now prescribed by any of the competent Authorities cannot fetter or abrogate the right of a person to have his name altered, substituted or changed, provided it is, after due verification, found that it is not being attempted for questionable reasons or confutative motives, but in valid exercise of his/her constitutional liberties. 9. 9. Needless to say, therefore, Government and the other official respondents will have to now consider how the substitutions/alterations of names in the educational records are to be permitted and a proper verificational procedure embedded to it, to ensure that legitimate claims are not thrown out at the threshold, merely because prescriptions for the same are not available. 10. In summation, I am certain that Government must now come out with an appropriate procedure to permit the change/substitution of the name of an individual in his educational records, retaining the original name and showing it to have been altered, on the strength of declaration by a court of law and/or notifications in the gazette, along with such other imperative requirements as may be found necessary. This cannot be delayed any further and the Government must now issue appropriate orders for this purpose at the earliest. In the result, these writ petitions are ordered, directing the Government of Kerala or such other appropriate Authority, to issue guidelines for change/substitution of the names of individuals in their educational records, adverting to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav's case (supra), thus leading to a sanctioned procedure to be published in terms of law, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Once the afore procedure is put in place and validly notified, the case of the petitioners will be considered as per its terms and they will also be given an opportunity of producing additional documents or materials, if it is so found necessary, leading to their educational records being corrected in the manner sought for. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date on which the sanctioned procedure, as ordered above, is brought into force by the Government or other competent Authorities.