JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Avanish Ranjan Srivastava, counsel for the appellant, Shri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. This intra Court appeal is against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2024 passed in Writ C No. 8088 of 2023, Tushar Tripathi v. Central Board Of Secondary Education and 2 others, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge questioning the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the second respondent, Assistant Secretary (Marks and Migration) Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Civil Lines, Prayagraj and also seeking correction in the mother's name as Pritam Devi in place of Poonam Devi was dismissed. 3. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner before the writ Court was that his father's name is Shri Pritam Tripathi and the mother's name is Smt. Pritam Devi, which was correctly recorded in the third respondent-institution, J.D.S. Public School, Pancho Shivala, Village Koiripur Khurd, Post Rasulpur, District Varanasi, however, on account of fault at the end of the said institution, the name of the mother of the appellant-writ petitioner was recorded as Poonam Devi in the High School marksheet-cum-certificate. 4. It is also the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that in the marksheet of Senior Secondary Examination of the year 2022 issued by the C.B.S.E. his mother's name was correctly shown as Pritam Devi. Based on the family register maintained under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 as well as the Aadhar Card and the PAN card depicting the name of his mother as Pritam Devi, request was made for correction of his mother's name as Pritam Devi in place of Poonam Devi, however, the said request of the writ petitioner was declined by passing an order dated 21.12.2021. 5. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-C No. 8088 of 2023, which after exchange of affidavits came to be dismissed on 30.1.2024. 6. Assailing the order dated 30.1.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-writ petitioner has preferred the present special appeal. 7. 5. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-C No. 8088 of 2023, which after exchange of affidavits came to be dismissed on 30.1.2024. 6. Assailing the order dated 30.1.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-writ petitioner has preferred the present special appeal. 7. Shri Avanish Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in dismissing the writ petition inasmuch as once it was the consistent stand of the appellant-writ petitioner right from the very inception that his mother's name is Smt. Pritam Devi which also stood substantiated from the entries made in the family register which happens to be a public document and it was the fault of the third respondent institution while forwarding documents giving incorrect entry with respect to the name of the mother of the writ petitioner then in view of the judgment in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, (2021) 7 SCC 535 , the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for change of his mother's name deserves acceptance, thus, it is prayed that the judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the CBSE dated 21.12.2021 is liable to be set aside. 8. Countering the said submissions, Shri H.N. Pandey who appearing for the CBSE, submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference, as the learned Single Judge after summoning the records and perusing the same found that the name of the mother of appellant-writ petitioner was Poonam Devi and not Pritam Devi, thus, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. It has also been argued that there is no unfettered legal enforceable right accrued in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner to claim change in the name of the mother of appellant-writ petitioner as the same is subject to various factors which are to be assessed by the CBSE and in the present case in hand it was found that there was no document placed before the CBSE showing the fact that the name of the mother of the appellant-writ petitioner was Pritam Devi. It is thus prayed that special appeal be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. 10. It is thus prayed that special appeal be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. 10. It is not disputed that as per the records, the name of the father of appellant-writ petitioner is Pritam Tripathi. It is also not in dispute that Pritam Tripathi is married to Smt. Pritam Devi. The bone of contention between the parties is whether the name of mother of the appellant-writ petitioner is Poonam Devi or Pritam Devi. The appellant-writ petitioner has relied upon the family register which is available on record at page 56/57 of the paper-book maintained under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 so as to contend that the name of the mother of the appellant-writ petitioner is Pritam Devi. Reliance has also been placed upon the Aadhar Card depicting the fact that Pritam Devi is the wife of Pritam Tripathi who happens to the father of the writ petitioner. 11. The objection of the counsel for the CBSE is to the effect that the family register so maintained under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 was never placed before the authorities and as per the records of the institution, from where the appellant-writ petitioner claimed to have studied had not produced any document showing the name of the mother of the appellant-writ petitioner as Pritam Devi. Thus the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be acceded to. 12. The issue with regard to change of particulars in the marksheet-cum-certificate issued by the CBSE is no more res integra, as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra) had the occasion to consider the said contingency while holding as under: “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. 194.1. 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. 194.1. Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change alongwith caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).” 13. Applying the principles so culled out in the above noted decision in the present facts of the case, the Court finds that since there are no conflicting claims raised by any of the parties and further the appellant-writ petitioner is armed with a public document in the shape of family register maintained under the relevant statutory rules showing the name of the mother of the appellant-writ petitioner as Pritam Devi, thus, the respondents/CBSE were not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for change of the name of his mother. 14. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. 14. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. The judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the second respondent, Assistant Secretary (Marks and Migration) Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Civil Lines, Prayagraj are set aside. 15. The matter stands remitted to the second respondent to consider the request of the appellant-writ petitioner to change the name of his mother as Pritam Devi in place of Poonam Devi, after according satisfaction and due verification of the records in light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. 16. Needless to point out that this Court has not expressed any opinion upon the genuineness of the family register, as the issue regarding verification is left open to the respondent-authorities.