ORDER G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri L.V.S Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader for School Education. 2. Prayer (amended as per the Orders in I.A.No.1 of 2023 dated 16.04.2024) made in the Writ Petition is as under: 'It is therefore necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus: i. Calling for records in L.Dis.No.627/Text Books-1/2016 of the Second Respondent and the Third Respondent in Rc.No.12/B4/2016 dated 17-10-2016 and set-aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India n Jigya Yadav Vs CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) (Reported in 2021 (7) SCC 535 ) and consequently direct the Respondents to make necessary corrections in the school records including that of the higher education with respect to the Petitioner's name as Kundeti Venkata Narasaiah in place of Kolusu Narasaih, Petitioner s father name as Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao in place of Kolusu Pothuraju and Petitioner's mother name as Kundeti Usha Sri instead of Kolusu Lakshmi; ii. and quash the Rules governing the correction of the dates of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificates, Higher Secondary Certificates and Higher Secondary (M.P) Certificates framed under GO.Ms.No.1263 dated 06/05/1961 (Education Department), G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 31/12/1992 (Education (E.E.I) Department)), Rc.No. 1141553/Text Books-/2020 dated 14/05/2020 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300.A of the Constitution and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jigya Yadav Vs CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) (Reported in 2021 (7) SCC535) and consequently direct the Respondents to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jigya Yadav Vs CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) (Reported in 2021 (7) SCC 535 ) for correction of the dates of birth of any individual in the Secondary School Leaving Certificates, Higher Secondary Certificates and Higher Secondary (M.P) Certificates; And pass such other order or orders as this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case" SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER: 3. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER: 3. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner is born on 28.10.1999 to Late Sri Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao and Kundeti Usha Sri (alias Lakshmi) at Kalidindi Village and Mandal, Krishna District. The birth of the Writ Petitioner was registered on 10.11.1999 under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 bearing Registration No.26/1999; that the Writ Petitioner also has a younger sibling (sister) by name Kum. Kundeti Geetha Sri, who was born on 22.08.2002; that the Secondary School Certificate issued in favour of the Sister namely Kum. Kundeti Geetha Sri bears the Date of Birth and also the names of the parents as Sri Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao and Smt. Kundeti Usha Sri (Ex.P.3); that the father of the Writ Petitioner had a premature death on 02.11.2008, by which time the Writ Petitioner was about 9 years old; that due sudden loss of the breadwinner in the family, the widowed mother of the Writ Petitioner along with both her children had then moved to Vinjarampadu, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District where the Maternal Uncle by name Sri Kolusu Pothu Raju took care of Writ Petitioner's family; and that the Maternal Uncle Sri Kolusu Pothu Raju had admitted the Writ Petitioner in Model Public School, Gudivada, and thereafter, in Vidya Vikas English Medium High School, Gudivada, which had Hostel facility; 4. Ld. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would further submit that while admitting the Writ Petitioner in Model Public School, Gudivada, the Maternal Uncle, Sri Kolusu Pothu Raju and the Mother of the Writ Petitioner, Smt. Kundeti Usha Sri were illiterate; that the father's name of the Writ Petitioner was mistakenly recorded in the school record as Kolusu Pothu Raju and the name of the Mother as Kolusu Lakshmi and thereby recording the Writ Petitioner's name as Kolusu Narasaiah, while his actual name is Kundeti Venkata Narasaiah; that this was done wrongly by the School Authorities despite the fact that the earlier school record clearly states the name of the Writ Petitioner as Kundeti Venkata Narasaiah and father's name as Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao; that this incorrect recording of the names of the parents of the Writ Petitioner in the school records was completely ignored by the Maternal Uncle Sri Kolusu Pothu Raju of the Writ Petitioner and the Mother of the Writ Petitioner Smt. Kundeti Usha Sri due to lack of knowledge and due to illiteracy; that at a later stage, when the Mother came to know about this discrepancy, by taking the help of the Village Elders, the Mother of the Writ Petitioner submitted a Representation dated 04.06.2015 to the Headmaster of Vidya Vikas English Medium High School, Gudivada (Ex.P.6); and that the Mother of the Writ Petitioner also made an Application to the Respondents herein for the correction of the name of the Writ Petitioner and also the names of the Writ Petitioner's Father and Mother in terms of Rules framed in the G.O.Ms.No.430 EDUCATION (E.E.I) DEPARTMENT dated 31.12.1992; 5. Ld. Ld. Counsel would further submit that the G.O.Ms.No.430 EDUCATION (E.E.I) DEPARTMENT dated 31.12.1992 has amended Rule 11 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1263, Education, dated 06.05.1961 empowering the competent authority to entertain and effect corrections and alternations in respect of the Applications for corrections or alteration of the date of Birth in completed S.S.L.C/H.S.C/H.S (M) C/S.S.C; that the Respondent No.4/Deputy Educational Officer, Gudivada, by Proceedings bearing Rc.No.DyEO-12/2016 dated 31.05.2016 recommended to the District Educational Officer, Krishna, after having considered the various documents submitted by the Headmaster of Vidya Vikas English Medium High School, Gudivada, to make necessary corrections in the S.S.C Pass Certificate and other school records (this document is filed along with the Counter Affidavit); and that, despite the recommendation made by the Respondent No.4/Deputy Educational Officer, Gudivada, the Respondent No.3/District Educational Officer, Gudivada, has rejected the recommendation vide Proceedings bearing Rc.No.12/B4/2016 dated 17.10.2016 (this document is filed along with the Counter Affidavit); 6. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would further submit that the rejection was based on the reasoning that the mistake was not committed at the school level but the mistake was done by the parents only, and therefore, by virtue of the G.O.Ms.No.430 EDUCATION (E.E.I) DEPARTMENT dated 31.12.1992, corrections cannot be made; that the Commissioner of School Education namely the Respondent No.2 also affirmed the Order of the District Educational Officer, Gudivada vide Proceedings bearing L.Dis.No.627/Text Books-1/2016 dated 23.08.2016 (this document is also filed along with the Counter Affidavit); that this Proceedings before the Deputy Educational Officer (Respondent No.4), the District Educational Officer (Respondent No.3) and the Commissioner of School Education (Respondent No.2) took place when the Writ Petitioner was still a minor; and that the Writ Petitioner herein after becoming a major and after having came to know about this discrepancy has approached the Authorities by way of an Application dated 30.03.2022; 7. Ld. Ld. Counsel would further submit that the Writ Petitioner has become a major on 28.10.2017, but he could not approach the Authorities within three years because of the COVID situation, and therefore, he has made the Representation only on 30.03.2022 (Ex.P.9), and it is within the period of limitation, as saved by the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in Taken-up Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 for the COVID-19 period (the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stood excluded); and that the Respondent Authorities have even refused to accept the Application of the Writ Petitioner herein. 8. Having been aggrieved by non-acceptance of the Writ Petitioner's Application dated 30.03.2022 and also having been aggrieved by the Proceedings issued by the District Educational Officer (Respondent No.3) dated 17.10.2016 and the Proceedings of the Commissioner of School Education (Respondent No.2) dated 23.08.2016, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court. 9. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner was made to suffer due to no fault of his. He further submits that even assuming the Maternal Uncle of the Writ Petitioner, who is an illiterate, got the name of the Writ Petitioner and his parents wrongly recorded in the school records which got carried into the Transfer Certificates and the Secondary School Certificate. The record produced by the Writ Petitioner admittedly reflects the true facts which cannot be denied namely the Birth Certificate indicating the date of Registration as 10.11.1999 bearing Registration No.26/1999 (Ex.P.3) and it clearly indicates the correct names of not only the parents of the Writ Petitioner but also the Writ Petitioner's name itself. 10. Learned Counsel would submit that for the younger sibling (sister) of the Writ Petitioner born on 22.08.2002, her S.S.C Certificate clearly indicates the correct names of her parents. The learned Counsel would submit that the technicalities shall not come in the way of the career and future of the Writ Petitioner, as the discrepancy which had crept-in would go a long way to the detriment of the Writ Petitioner. 11. Learned Counsel would submit that the Writ Petitioner is now qualified in B.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed-to-be University), Chennai, by securing distinction marks and that he has a bright future. 12. 11. Learned Counsel would submit that the Writ Petitioner is now qualified in B.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed-to-be University), Chennai, by securing distinction marks and that he has a bright future. 12. Learned Counsel, in support of his submissions, has also placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in Addanki Sri Jayanthi Sneha Vs. State of A.P ((2021) SCC Online AP 265) in W.P.No.3503 of 2021 dated 15.02.2021. Wherein, the Learned Single Judge of this Court has placed reliance on the Birth Certificate, which was also part of the school record therein and had held that the clerical mistakes committed in the school or the office records of the Education Department can be corrected. 13. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors. ( (2021) 7 SCC 535 ). This is a Judgment rendered by three Learned Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION: 14. On the contrary, Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader for School Education took support of the averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed on 02.07.2022. Learned Government Pleader has heavily relied on the effect of the Amendment made through the G.O.Ms.No.430 EDUCATION (E.E.I) DEPARTMENT dated 31.12.1992, by which the earlier Rule 11 of G.O.Ms.No.1263, Education, dated 06.05.1961 stood amended empowering the Competent Authority to correct the clerical mistakes within a period of three years only from the date of entry. 15. Learned Government Pleader for School Education would submit that the extension of period of limitation (COVID-19 period) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taken-up Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 would not come to the help of Writ Petitioner; that the findings given by the District Educational Officer is to the effect that the mistake was committed by the parents of the Writ Petitioner and it is not a clerical mistake committed by the School Authorities, and hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit, and therefore, the same should be dismissed. 16. It is noted initially that, I.A.No.01 of 2023 was filed by the Writ Petitioner for amendment of the prayer. 16. It is noted initially that, I.A.No.01 of 2023 was filed by the Writ Petitioner for amendment of the prayer. The prayer was sought to be amended by the Writ Petitioner so as to seek reliefs consistent with the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors; (2021) 7 SCC 535 . 17. The Respondent No.2 filed a Counter-Affidavit titled as 'Additional Affidavit' on 29.09.2023 to this I.A. It is averred in the said Counter-Affidavit of Respondent No.2 (in I.A.No.01 of 2023) that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the light of G.O.Ms.No.430 EDUCATION (E.E.I) DEPARTMENT dated 31.12.1992. It is also averred that the dictum in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh; (2020) 3 SCC 411 would disentitle the Writ Petitioner from seeking the relief as prayed for. 18. Learned Counsel for the Official Respondents would submit that, G.O.Ms.No.1263, Education Department, dated 06.05.1961 has laid down certain procedures for correction of the Date of Birth in Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and also the Date of Birth, name, surname, parent's names, caste, religion in School records and in completed S.S.C., etc. These issues would be dealt with at an appropriate place henceforth. ANALYSIS: 19. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for School Education, the question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Writ Petitioner is entitled to the correction of his name and also the correction of his parents names in the SSC and School Leaving Certificate. 20. Before considering the entitlement of the Writ Petitioner, this Court feels it necessary to briefly consider the ratio in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others ( (2021) 7 SCC 535 ). 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the various aspects including the Fundamental Rights and Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the effect that the Freedom of Expression would include the right of an individual to express himself or herself even through the name that eventually discloses the identity of a person in the society. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered a batch of 22 Writ Petitions relating to correction/change in name/surname/date of birth of candidates or their parents in the certificates issued by the Board (Paragraph No.4). 22. In the case of Jigya Yadav, the High Court rejected the prayer of the Writ Petitioner (Jigya Yadav) for correction of the name of her parents in the marks sheets issued by the CBSE Board. The Writ Petitioner/Appellant before the Apex Court contented that the name of her parents was incorrectly recorded as 'Hari Singh Yadav' instead of 'Hari Singh' and as 'Mamata Yadav' instead of 'Mamta' for the Mother. The High Court of Delhi has relied on Bye-law 69.1 of the CBSE Examination Byelaws, 2007 to dismiss the plea of the Writ Petitioner/Appellant before the Apex Court. While relying on such Bye-law 69.1, the High Court of Delhi has affirmed the decision of the CBSE Board on the basis that the errors were not inadvertent and they had consciously chosen and retained the said names despite having opportunity to rectify before the Xth standard. 23. The case of the Writ Petitioner in the present case is precisely identical to the case of Jigya Yadav inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner in the present case also proposes to record the name of his real father by deleting the name of the maternal uncle. 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed various aspects as indicated above. Some of the relevant paragraphs from Jigya Yadav's case are usefully extracted. 25. In Paragraph Nos.123, 125 to 127 and 136, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "123. The question whether bye-laws under consideration impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, may have to be understood in the context of enunciation of this Court that the core existence of an individual is not exemplified by her outer characteristics but by her inner self-identification and also about the significance of the acquired identity in the form of name. The identity of an individual is one of the most closely guarded areas of the Constitutional scheme in India. The identity of an individual is one of the most closely guarded areas of the Constitutional scheme in India. The sanctity of identity has been recognised by this Court in a plethora of cases including National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 ], Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] and K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India [K. S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 ]. 125. Identity, therefore, is an amalgam of various internal and external including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity. And therefore, an individual must be in complete control of her name and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such control freely 'for all times". Such control would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to be recognised by a different name for a just cause. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for a guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. In light of Navtej Singh Johar [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 1], this freedom would include the freedom to lawfully express one's identity in the manner of their liking. In other words, expression of identity is a protected element of freedom of expression under the Constitution. 126. Having recognised the existence of this right, the essential question pertains to the rights that flow due to the change of name. The question becomes vital because identity, as stated above, is a combination of diverse set of elements. Navtej Singh Johar [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] dealt with 'natural identity'' and here we are dealing with name, which can only be perceived as an 'acquired identity''. Therefore, the precise scope of right and extent of restrictions could only be determined upon deeper examination. 127. To begin with, it is important to explain what we understand by this right to change of name as a constituent element of freedom of expression of identity. Therefore, the precise scope of right and extent of restrictions could only be determined upon deeper examination. 127. To begin with, it is important to explain what we understand by this right to change of name as a constituent element of freedom of expression of identity. Any change in identity of an individual has to go through multiple steps and it cannot be regarded as complete without proper fulfilment of those steps. An individual may self-identify oneself with any title or epithet at any point of time. But the change of identity would not be regarded as formally or legally complete until and unless the State and its agencies take note thereof in their records. Afterall, in social sphere, an individual is not only recognised by how an individual identifies oneself but also by how his/her official records identify him/her. For, in every public transaction of an individual, official records introduce the person by his/her name and other relevant particulars. 136. The limitation as regards maximum period up to which changes can be permitted also requires a different approach. Upon receiving the certificates, the student would naturally be put to notice of the particulars of certificates. Due to young age and inadvertence including being casual and indolent, a student may fail to identify the errors or to understand the probable impact of those errors and accordingly, may not apply for rectification immediately. It is also possible that a student may not have to use the certificates immediately after passing out and by the time she uses them, the limitation period for correction may elapse. Therefore, a realistic time for permitting corrections is very important. Indeed, it can be commensurate with the statutory or mandatory period up to which CBSE is obliged to preserve its old record. 26. At Paragraph No.137, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that there cannot be a rigid period of limitation for the correction of the record/entries by the CBSE Board. 27. At Paragraph Nos.138 and 139, the Hon'ble Apex Court had also stated that mere possibility of abuse cannot deter the Board from fulfilling their essential functions. It is stated that a possibility of abuse cannot be an abuse to deny legitimate rights to citizens. 28. 27. At Paragraph Nos.138 and 139, the Hon'ble Apex Court had also stated that mere possibility of abuse cannot deter the Board from fulfilling their essential functions. It is stated that a possibility of abuse cannot be an abuse to deny legitimate rights to citizens. 28. At Paragraph No.140, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Fundamental Right of a person to change his or her name cannot be a casualty in the name of either administrative efficiency or administrative convenience. 29. At Paragraph No.143, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while balancing the right of students on one hand with that of administrative convenience, had categorically held that the Board and the Students are not in an equal position to impact. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the balance of convenience would tilt in favour of the students, as the students lose more due to inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry is increasing administrative burden. 30. At Paragraph No.144, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that utility of certificates is not confined to educational purpose to anymore. They serve a social purpose today and are often used to cross verify particulars like name and date of birth while applying for other Government identity documents. They assume immense relevance while applying for various jobs. 31. The Hon'ble Apex Court has summed up its conclusions from Paragraph Nos.192 to 194. The said Paragraphs are usefully extracted hereunder: ' Conclusion and directions to CBSE 192. Although we have discussed the broad issues canvassed before us, in the ultimate analysis the real dispute requiring resolution is about the nature of correction or change, as the case may be, permissible to be carried by the CBSE at the instance of the student including past student. As noted earlier, broadly, two situations would arise. 193. The first is where the incumbent wants 'correction' in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. 193.1. As we have held, there is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations. 193.1. As we have held, there is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations. While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim against it by third party because of such correction. The CBSE would be justified in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with the fresh certificate to be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with caption/annotation against the changes carried out and the date of such correction. It may retain the original entries as it is except in respect of correction of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten. The fresh certificate may also contain disclaimer that the CBSE cannot be held responsible for the genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate. The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing fresh certificate. 193.2. At the same time, the CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results. Such a condition, as we have held, would be unreasonable and excessive. We repeat that if the application for recording correction is based on the school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained by it. However, if the request for recording change is based on changed school records post the publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the candidate would be entitled to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because such a change would occur obviously at her instance. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because such a change would occur obviously at her instance. If she makes such application for correction of the school records, she is expected to apply to the CBSE immediately after the school records are modified and which ought to be done within a reasonable time. 193.3. Indeed, it would be open to the CBSE to reject the application in the event the period for preservation of official records under the extant regulations had expired and no record of the candidate concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed. In the case of subsequent amendment of school records, that may occur due to different reasons including because of choice exercised by the candidate regarding change of name. To put it differently, request for recording of correction in the certificate issued by the CBSE to bring it in line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to application made prior to publication of examination results of the CBSE. 194. As regards request for 'change' of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like birth certificate, Aadhaar card, election card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate. Insofar as the case of the present Writ Petitioner is concerned, this Court holds that it is covered under the conclusions and directions in Paragraph No.193 of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Jigya Yadav's case).' 32. Having taken note of the authoritative pronouncement on various aspects by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is now required to see whether the facts of the present case would warrant the application of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others ( (2021) 7 SCC 535 ) or not?. 33. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others ( (2021) 7 SCC 535 ) or not?. 33. For this purpose, facts which are to be taken into account are that the Writ Petitioner was born on 28.10.1999; that the father of the Writ Petitioner died on 02.11.2008 i.e., when the Writ Petitioner was about nine years old; that the widowed mother with the two children (including the Writ Petitioner) were shifted to the Maternal Uncle's village (Vinjarampadu, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District) and also taken care by him; that the Maternal Uncle and the mother of the Writ Petitioner are both illiterate; that the Maternal Uncle admitted the Writ Petitioner initially in the Model Public School, Gudivada, and thereafter, in Vidya Vikas English Medium High School, Gudivada; that during admission in Model Public School, Gudivada, the Maternal Uncle's name - Sri Kolusu Pothu Raju was incorrectly recorded as the father of the Writ Petitioner and consequently the name of the Writ Petitioner was also written as Kolusu Narasaiah while the Writ Petitioner's actual name is Kundeti Venkata Narasaiah; that the Deputy Educational Officer (Respondent No.4) having considered the case of the Writ Petitioner, recommended for making necessary corrections. Whereas, such recommendation of Respondent No.4 was disapproved by Respondent No.3 namely the District Educational Officer, and this opinion of Respondent No.3 was confirmed by the Commissioner of School Education (Respondent No.2); that the Writ Petitioner attained majority in the year 2017; and that he could not make the request within three years after attaining majority since that period was intercepted by the COVID-19 epidemic; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Taken-up Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 vide Order dated 10.01.2022, had extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Whereas, the application was made before the Respondent No.4 in the year 2016 itself. 34. This apart, the Birth Certificate issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner as well as the younger sibling (sister) of the Writ Petitioner namely Kum. Kundeti Geetha Sri, it has been recorded that the father of both the children as Sri Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao. 35. The notable feature is that the surname and the father's name mentioned in the school record for younger sibling as the reference of Sri Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao as father. 36. Kundeti Geetha Sri, it has been recorded that the father of both the children as Sri Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao. 35. The notable feature is that the surname and the father's name mentioned in the school record for younger sibling as the reference of Sri Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao as father. 36. The above facts are narrated only for the record purpose and that the objections raised by the Official Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also the limitation part as contended by Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, Ld. Government Pleader for School Education, pales away into oblivion, in view of the ratio decidendi in Jigya Yadav's case (referred supra), as discussed herein above. 37. For better appreciation of facts, this Court is of the view that the Objections raised by the Official Respondents vide Counter-Affidavit in I.A.No.1 of 2023 (Additional Affidavit) dated 29.09.2023 must also be discussed. Two significant contentions raised in the said Counter-Affidavit dated 29.09.2023 are: (i) plea of the Writ Petitioner should be rejected in the light of the ratio in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh; (2020) 3 SCC 411 ; and that, (ii) that the plea of the Writ Petitioner must be rejected because it is beyond three years from the date of completion of the SSC Course as the issue is hit by G.O.Ms.No.430 Education (EE-I) Department, dated 31.12.1992. 38. This Court has gone through the facts involved in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others, which would indicate that a plea was made by an employee for correction of Date of Birth on the verge of his superannuation, which practice was deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Whereas, in the present case, the Writ Petitioner is just at the threshold of his carrier and therefore, the ratio in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others' case has no relevance at all. Insofar as, the application of G.O.Ms.No.430 EDUCATION (E.E.I) DEPARTMENT dated 31.12.1992 is concerned, this G.O is directly hit by authoritative dictum in Jigya Yadav's case. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State and its' authorities cannot now raise the plea of limitation. Jigya Yadav's case is path-breaking: 39. The dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav's case is a path-breaking one touching upon the fundamental rights. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State and its' authorities cannot now raise the plea of limitation. Jigya Yadav's case is path-breaking: 39. The dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav's case is a path-breaking one touching upon the fundamental rights. The three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has equated the 'right to identity of an individual' with that of fundamental rights under the Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the authoritative and 'path-breaking' dictum handed-down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the archaic notions such as unavailability of the record, limitation period that is set for correction of Date of Birth, name, surname, names of parents and the hardships faced by the authorities etc., will now have to be redefined by the authorities by taking into consideration this binding precedent handed-down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav's case under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Executive Orders/Executive instructions as well as the rules governing the aspects of correction of Date of Birth, name, surname, parents' names, caste, religion, entries in School records etc., shall now have to be redefined and re-drafted by the authorities by harmonizing the practices adopted by them and the administrative procedures in tune with the ratio in Jigya Yadav's case. Needless to state that such of those Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Executive Instructions/ Executive Orders, which are in contravention with the ratio in Jigya Yadav's case shall be impliedly set aside or in other words, held to be nonest in the eye of law. CONCLUSIONS: 40. In the above premise, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following findings: i. Ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav's case (referred supra) squarely applies to the case on hand. ii. The recommendation made by the Respondent No.4/Deputy Educational Officer vide Proceedings bearing Rc.No.DyEO-12/2016 dated 31.05.2016 is upheld. Consequently, the decision rendered by Respondent No.3 namely District Educational Officer vide Proceedings bearing Rc.No.12/B4/2016 dated 17.10.2016, as confirmed by the Respondent No.2 namely Commissioner of School Education vide Proceedings bearing L.Dis.No.627/Text Books-1/2016 dated 23.08.2016 are set aside by holding that their decisions are irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the ratio in Jigya Yadav's case (referred supra). iii. Consequently, the decision rendered by Respondent No.3 namely District Educational Officer vide Proceedings bearing Rc.No.12/B4/2016 dated 17.10.2016, as confirmed by the Respondent No.2 namely Commissioner of School Education vide Proceedings bearing L.Dis.No.627/Text Books-1/2016 dated 23.08.2016 are set aside by holding that their decisions are irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the ratio in Jigya Yadav's case (referred supra). iii. The issue of limitation becomes irrelevant in view of findings given in Jigya Yadav's case. 41. Consequently, following direction is issued: Respondent No.2 and Subordinate Officers are directed to implement the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others ( (2021) 7 SCC 535 ) and make necessary changes/corrections in all the records as required by the Writ Petitioner by changing his present name 'Kolusu Narasaiah' to that of 'Kundeti Venkata Narasaiah'; father's name as 'Kundeti Venkata Srinivasa Rao' in place of 'Kolusu Pothuraju' and mother's name as 'Kundeti Usha Sri' in place of 'Kolusu Lakshmi'. 42. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is allowed. There shall be no Order as to Costs. 43. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.