JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 being the authorities under the Board of Secondary Education Assam (for short, SEBA) and the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council (for short, AHSEC), Mr. Girin Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 being the District Magistrate Sonitpur. 2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we are not required to hear the respondent No.4 being the authorities under the Don Bosco High School Tezpur, although a learned counsel on an earlier occasion in the hearing had represented the said respondent. 3. The petitioner Paridhi Prisha Saikia aged about 21 years was born on 25.11.1998 as a male and was christened as Jishnu Kanti Saikia. Over the years, there were certain physical and mental changes in the petitioner resulting in the medical opinion given by the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, Bangalore whereby the petitioner has been diagnosed as extracted below : “Summary: 15 year old child, temperamentally easy going, nil contributory personal & past history, family history of psychosis and anxiety in 1st degree relative, presented with history of gender dysphoria, and a consistent desire to become a girl since the age of 5 years, manifested in pretend play, preference of play activities, preference of friends. H/O Low mood, decreased concentration, easy fatigability and repeated attempts at DSH (8 till date) for the past 6 months. With Facing ostracization and subject to bullying & moderate dysfunction.” 4. The medical opinion is that the petitioner is afflicted by the state of ‘gender dysphoria’. 5. Section 2 (k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (for short, the Act of 2019) inter alia defines "transgender person" to mean a person whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth and includes trans-man or trans-woman (whether or not such person has undergone sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy or laser therapy or such other therapy). Section 2(k) of the Act of 2019 is extracted as below : “2(k) transgender person" means a person whose gender does not match with the gender assigned to that person at birth and includes trans-man or trans-woman (whether or not such person has undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery or hormone therapy or laser therapy or such other therapy), person with intersex variations, genderqueer and person having such socio-cultural identities as kinner, hijra, aravani and jogta.” 6. A trans-woman is given the meaning of a woman who was assigned male at birth. Trans-women have a female gender identity, may experience gender dysphoria, and may transition. 7. As there is a medical opinion formed that the petitioner is in the state of gender dysphoria, the petitioner would have to be understood to be a trans-woman and being a trans-woman, the petitioner would be within the definition of transgender person as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act of 2019. 8. In the process the petitioner had obtained the Aadhaar and PAN Card wherein the name of the petitioner is shown as Paridhi Prisha Saikia. 9. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the authorities in the SEBA and the AHSEC that the name incorporated in the marksheets and certificates issued to the petitioner by the two authorities for the Class X and Class XII examinations be changed to Paridhi Prisha Saikia. 10. A further issue is raised by referring to the provisions of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 and paragraph 135.2 of the judgment rendered in National Legal Service Authority Vs. Union of India and others (for short, NALSA judgment) reported in (2014) 5 SCC 438 that the petitioner has the right to decide the self identified gender and accordingly although was a male at birth, but because of the state of gender dysphoria be now accepted to be of the gender female. 11. In paragraph 22 of the NALSA judgment, it has been provided that sexual orientation refers to an individual’s enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to another person. Sexual orientation includes transgender and gender-variant people with heavy sexual orientation and their sexual orientation may or may not change during or after gender transmission, which also includes homo-sexuals, bysexuals, heterosexuals, asexual etc., and that gender identity and sexual orientation are different concepts. Sexual orientation includes transgender and gender-variant people with heavy sexual orientation and their sexual orientation may or may not change during or after gender transmission, which also includes homo-sexuals, bysexuals, heterosexuals, asexual etc., and that gender identity and sexual orientation are different concepts. Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination. Paragraph 22 of the NALSA judgment is extracted as below : “22. Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to another person. Sexual orientation includes transgender and gender-variant people with heavy sexual orientation and their sexual orientation may or may not change during or after gender transmission, which also includes homo-sexuals, bysexuals, heterosexuals, asexual etc. Gender identity and sexual orientation, as already indicated, are different concepts. Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom and no one shall be forced to undergo medical procedures, including SRS, sterilization or hormonal therapy, as a requirement for legal recognition of their gender identity.” 12. In paragraph 135.2 of the NALSA judgment, it has been provided that transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of the gender identity such as male, female or as third gender. Paragraph 135.2 is extracted as follows : “Transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender”. 13. But for the present writ petition which is instituted limited to the prayer for a direction to the authorities in the SEBA and AHSEC to change the name of the petitioner to Paridhi Prisha Saikia in the marksheets and certificates issued by the said two authorities, we are not required to go into the said question and leave the question open to be decided at any appropriate proceeding that may be raised. 14. 14. As the specific prayer in this writ petition is for change in the name of the writ petitioner in the marksheets and certificates issued by the SEBA and the AHSEC in respect of the examinations undertaken by the petitioner, we confine our decision only on the said limited question. 15. In order to oppose the prayer of the petitioner for a change in the name in the marksheets and certificates, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents in the SEBA and AHSEC refers to clause 8 of the Regulation on Examination of the Board, 2016 (for short, the Regulation of 2016) and submits that the procedure required to be followed under clause 8 of the Regulation of 2016 does not make it conducive for a change in the name of the petitioner in the certificates issued by the SEBA and AHSEC at this stage in the manner claimed for in this writ petition. 16. In ordinary circumstances, we would have been in agreement with Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the authorities under the SEBA and AHSEC, but in the instant case, we have to take note of the factual circumstances involved in this writ petition. The petitioner had undergone a change in the physical and mental state which is medically and legally recognised and there is also a medical opinion to that extent. 17. Considering the propositions laid down by the Supreme Court in NALSA judgment we have to accept that the circumstances which the present petitioner had to undergo would place the petitioner in a reasonable classification of its own having intelligible differentia that the rational object at hand with any other person or any other candidates under the SEBA and AHSEC to whom the Regulation of 2016 are ifso facto applicable. 18. Considering the undisputed circumstantial situation that the petitioner belongs to a class different from the others, to which the provisions of the Regulation of 2016 are applicable and if we accept the contention of the Board that because of the provisions of Regulations of 2016, the name of the petitioner cannot be changed at this stage, we will arrive at a situation where the same set of laws are made applicable equally to two different classes of people. 19. The Supreme Court in its pronouncement in Venkateshwara Theatre Vs. 19. The Supreme Court in its pronouncement in Venkateshwara Theatre Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 677 in paragraph 23 had provided that if the same law is made applicable to two different classes of persons equally it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly would be arbitrary. Paragraph 23 of the said judgment is extracted as below : “23. Just as a difference in the treatment of persons similarly situate leads to discrimination, so also discrimination can arise if persons who are unequals, i.e. differently placed, are treated similarly. In such a case failure on the part of the legislature to classify the persons who are dissimilar in separate categories and applying the same law, irrespective of the differences, brings about the same consequence as in a case where the law makes a distinction between persons who are similarly placed. A law providing for equal treatment of unequal objects, transactions or persons would be condemned as discriminatory if there is absence of rational relation to the object intended to be achieved by the law.” 20. In the instant case also, if the Regulations of 2016 is made equally applicable for the petitioner in the present circumstances, it would amount to applying the same law to persons with a reasonable classification and the same would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met on the authorities under the SEBA and AHSEC to pass a reasoned order upon the claim of the petitioner for a change from the earlier name to Paridhi Prisha Saikia without considering it to be a hindrance in view of the provisions of the clause 8 of the Regulations of 2016. 21. We have also taken note that Rule 50 of the Regulations of 2016 provides for a relaxation on the application of the Regulations whenever any provision thereof causes hardship in any particular case. 21. We have also taken note that Rule 50 of the Regulations of 2016 provides for a relaxation on the application of the Regulations whenever any provision thereof causes hardship in any particular case. We are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the present case would definitely be a case where hardship would be caused to the petitioner, if the request of the petitioner for a change of name is not entertained by taking recourse to the provisions of clause 8 of the Regulations of 2016 and, therefore, from such point of view also it would be a fit case to exercise the power of relaxation as provided under Rule 50 of the Regulations of 2016. 22. Accordingly, we require the authorities under the SEBA and AHSEC if necessary to invoke the powers of Rule 50, and to pass a reasoned order keeping in view the observations made hereinabove that if the same law is made applicable to the petitioner to reject a request for change of name it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India and such rejection would be arbitrary. 23. The above requirement be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 24. In order to facilitate the process, the petitioner may submit a fresh application both before the SEBA and AHSEC along with a certified copy of this order and the medical papers referred in this order. 25. If any issue arises before the SEBA and AHSEC as to how the petitioner is to be described i.e. whether son of or daughter of, the SEBA and AHSEC may take a middle course on the issue by either not striking out son of or daughter of from the appropriate clause in the certificate format or by referring the petitioner to be child of the petitioner’s father. 26. We are passing this order protecting the legal rights of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner is presently pursuing a course in the Bachelor of Computer Application course from the Ramaiah College of Arts, Science & Commerce (RCASC), Bangalore and wants to pursue higher education and because of that there is a requirement of the certificates in the changed name of the petitioner. 27. Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.