Judgment sc-2021-4-1100-1197

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1Copy pinpoint1. “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, said Juliet. This quote from William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is unarguably one of the most iconic dialogues in classical literature. It conveys that the natural characteristics of an individual are more important than his/her artificial/acquired characteristics. A poetic statement as it certainly is, it does not go in tune with the significance of a name in marking the identity of an individual in his/her societal transactions. To put it differently, name is an intrinsic element of identity.

2Copy pinpoint2. The seminal issue in these cases is: whether an individual’s control over such cardinal element of identity could be denied to him/her by the Central Board of Secondary Education1 on the specious ground that its Examination Byelaws of 20072 must prevail over the claim of the candidate, which are merely intended to regulate such a claim and to delineate the procedure for correction/change in the contents of certificate(s) issued by it including regarding maintenance of its office records?

3Copy pinpoint3. The CBSE Examination Byelaws restrict, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the corrections/changes that can be carried out in the certificates issued by the Board. Various students with need-based requests approached different High Courts resulting into inconsistent outcomes leading up to this batch of appeals. Apart from the fact that the judgments have produced conflicting outcomes, the petitions raise some peculiar questions on the constitutional validity of CBSE G Examination Byelaws (as amended from time to time) and interpretation thereof.

4Copy pinpoint4. The present case involves a batch of 22 petitions wherein questions relating to correction/change in name/surname/date of birth of 1 for short, “CBSE” or “Board”, as the case may be H 2 for short, “Byelaws”

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1127 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

candidates or their parents in the certificates issued by the Board have A been raised.

5Copy pinpoint5. In order to identify the precise scope of challenge, we may now delineate the factual matrix in individual petitions. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3905 OF 2011 B

6Copy pinpoint6. The appellant in this case, Ms. Jigya Yadav, has assailed the decision of the High Court of Delhi, dated 20.12.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3774/2010, wherein the High Court rejected the prayer for direction to the Board to carry out correction of her parents’ name in the marksheets issued by it. The appellant’s case was that the name of her parents was incorrectly recorded as “Hari Singh Yadav” instead of “Hari Singh” (as recorded in the identity documents of father) and “Mamta Yadav” instead of “Mamta” (as recorded in the identity documents of mother). Relying upon Byelaw 69.1 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, 2007, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Board in refusing the desired corrections/changes. The Court relied upon the nursery application form, school admission form and stream allotment form for class XI filled by the parents of the appellant to conclude that the errors were not inadvertent, and they had consciously chosen and retained the said names despite having opportunity to rectify before the X th standard. It observed thus: E “15. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that despite the parents of the petitioner having mentioned their names as “Hari Singh” and “Mamta” in the petitioner’s birth certificate, they have consciously and consistently chosen to record their names as “Hari Singh Yadav” and “Mamta Yadav” in the school record. Consequently, we are of the opinion that this Court in the present petition should F not deal with the challenge of constitutional validity as it is the petitioner’s parents who are at fault and the error, if any, has been repeated on a number of occasions by the petitioner’s parents themselves. In fact, we are of the view that for the fault of the petitioner’s parents, the impugned Bye-law of the respondent no. G 1 cannot be set aside ...” The Court, however, made an avoidable observation that in a country with caste-based reservations, changes in name cannot be permitted readily. It noted thus: H

p. 1128 Copy page pinpoint

A “17. We are also of the view that in a country where there is reservation on caste and religious grounds, change of names of parents or ward’s name cannot be allowed at the drop of the hat.” The Court then observed that Byelaw 69.1 permits CBSE to carry out corrections only to the extent of bringing the record in conformity with the school record. In paragraph 21, the Court noted thus: “21. Even if one were to apply the aforesaid test one finds that the respondent no. 1 essentially records what has been mentioned in the school records consistently and that too, upto Class X, that means, for more than 10 years the child and/or her parents have the liberty to rectify the record. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the impugned Bye-law is perfectly reasonable.” While concluding, the Court observed that the Courts must be wary of interfering in academic matters and should refrain from giving an expansive interpretation to statutory rules/byelaws as it may render the system unworkable. It noted in paragraph 22: “22. Moreover, we are of the view that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to take a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice – as contended by the respondent no. 1 in its counter affidavit.”

7Copy pinpoint7. Assailing the decision, the appellant contends that Byelaw 69.1 (after 2007 amendment) is invalid as being unreasonable and arbitrary, thereby violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it puts a blanket embargo on corrections other than those which are necessary for bringing H

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1129 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

the documents in conformity with the school record. It is contended that the amended byelaw does not address the possibility of error in the school record itself, and leaves the student with no opportunity to correct the error committed by the parents in the school records. To buttress this submission, the appellant has submitted that the resultant hardship caused to her is infringement of her right guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g), right to freely express one’s identity as per Article 19(1)(a) and right to dignity in Article 21 of the Constitution.

8Copy pinpoint8. In the written submissions, the appellant has urged that CBSE certificates are public records of the Board and they carry a presumption of genuineness which must be respected by preserving the accuracy of such certificates. It is further urged that the 2007 Byelaws place school records above public documents which carry presumption of genuineness under the Indian Evidence Act, 18723. To buttress this submission, it is stated that it would be contrary to the objectives of CBSE if it refuses to correct its documents despite having verified the genuineness of the supporting public documents (like Aadhar card, Passport, Birth Certificate D etc.) and continues to perpetuate the obvious errors in the school records.

9Copy pinpoint9. The appellant has further submitted that by amending Byelaw 69.1 in this manner, CBSE has acted in violation of Regulation 10 and objectives of CBSE by rendering itself incapable of rectifying errors in the certificates and issuing accurate certificates, which is a basic function E of the Board. The CBSE has, the appellant submitted, exceeded its powers by effecting the said amendment as it was never meant to exercise such authority of putting fetters on its basic duties. Reliance has been placed upon Dhruva Parate vs. CBSE & Anr.4, State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Sanjeev @ Bittoo5, Indian Aluminium Company vs. Kerala State Electricity Board 6 and J.K. Aggarwal vs. Haryana Seeds F Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.7 to urge that CBSE cannot circumscribe its own powers with a self-imposed limitation in this manner.

10Copy pinpoint10. The appellant has further submitted that the impugned judgment erroneously connects the subject matter of the case with caste-based reservations which displays stereotype prejudice of the Court towards G

3 For short, “1872 Act” 4 ILR 2009 V Delhi 371 5 2005 (5) SCC 181 6 1975 (2) SCC 414 7 1991 (2) SCC 283 H

p. 1130 Copy page pinpoint

A her cause. The appellant also takes exception to the observations regarding wrongful conduct of the appellant’s parents in failing to get the records rectified before Xth standard. It is stated that the impugned judgment overlooked the fact that the parents had no choice of getting the application form corrected in XIth standard as it necessarily reflected the details of Xth standard without offering a choice of alteration. B

11Copy pinpoint11. In response, the Board has relied upon Byelaw 69.1 to submit that the appellant’s request for rectification was considered and the certificates were found to be matching with the school records and thus, no case for rectification was made out. It is submitted that before amendment Byelaw 69.1 permitted a different procedure for rectification C – approval by Court of law and notification in the gazette. Under this procedure, umpteen number of cases were filed, even after more than ten years of declaration of result, for rectification of name/surname and Courts were constantly approached for seeking leave to get the rectification done. As a result, objections were raised by various government authorities questioning the power of the Board to carry out changes in the identity of the students even after they have passed the examinations conducted by the Board. It is submitted that various Courts also expressed displeasure and suggested rephrasing of Byelaw 69.1. Resultantly, the 2007 amendment was effected permitting corrections only to the extent of bringing the certificates in conformity with the school record.

12Copy pinpoint12. To buttress the above submission, it is urged that CBSE, being an autonomous society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has the power to make, amend or delete its Rules, Regulations and Byelaws. Accordingly, Byelaw 69.1 was amended as the basic record of a student is kept by the school and the Board has no option but to rely upon the school record. It is further submitted that the parents of the appellant had ample opportunity to correct the school record and they chose not to do so. In fact, the respondent adds, they repeatedly filled the same particulars of their names in all the school forms from time to time.

13Copy pinpoint13. The Board has also filed elaborate written submissions to support their case. It is submitted that the Examination Byelaws of the Board are statutory in nature as they were framed in furtherance of the powers granted to the Board as per Government of India Resolution H dated 1.7.1929 and deviation cannot be permitted from the Byelaws.

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1131 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

As regards the argument of violation of fundamental rights, the Board A has submitted that there may be a fundamental right to be identified as per the choice of an individual, but there can be no fundamental right to claim that the changed identity must be operative since birth thereby compelling all including statutory bodies to carry out changes in documents issued by them. It is urged that any other view would amount to misuse of liberty and cause serious confusion at different level. Reliance has been placed upon Rayaan Chawla vs. University of Delhi & Anr.8 to support this position.

14Copy pinpoint14. The Board has further submitted that the restrictions/conditions for change of name and date of birth are reasonable as all the details are supplied by the students/parents at various stages of admissions which offers a prima facie guarantee of genuineness. It is submitted that change of name and date of birth in a reckless manner could have serious repercussions – misuse for employment, manipulating age of the accused etc. Reliance has been placed upon Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.9 to illustrate this. D

15Copy pinpoint15. The written submissions also touch upon the question of relevant date for the applicability of 2007 Byelaws. It is submitted that the relevant date would be the date of passing Xth standard examination and not the date of making application for changes. Lastly, it is submitted that the remedy of writ petition may not be appropriate for effecting changes in E CBSE certificates as usually, students come up with independent documents for supporting their claim and the writ Courts are not expected to adjudicate disputed facts concerning the relied upon documents. To buttress this submission, it is stated that despite presumption in favour of certified copies of public documents, they cannot be accepted at face value without providing an opportunity to rebut them as per Section 4 of F the 1872 Act. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3572 OF 2019

16Copy pinpoint16. In this appeal, the appellant (CBSE) has assailed the judgment dated 6.2.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No. 128/ G 2017, reversing the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6996/ 2016, wherein the prayer of the respondent (father of the student) to change the mother’s name in the certificate was rejected. The respondent 8 275 (2020) Delhi Law Times 314 9 (2019) 12 SCC 370 H

p. 1132 Copy page pinpoint

A had applied to CBSE for the change of mother’s name from “Kiran Khan” to “Fakiha Khan” stating that “Kiran Khan”, being the nickname of the mother, was inadvertently recorded in the school record of the student at the time of her admission in class I in 2005.

17Copy pinpoint17. The Division Bench granted the prayer primarily on the ground that the stated change was a mere correction of name and not a change of name per se as per the language of Rules 69.1(i) and 69.1(ii) of the Byelaws (as amended in 2015). To reach this conclusion, the Court relied upon the birth certificate of the student, educational certificates of mother, passport etc. which revealed that the mother’s name was recorded as “Fakiha Khan” in all these documents and it was nothing but an inadvertent error on the part of parents to have used the nickname of the mother while filling her school forms. The High Court noted that the case is neither a change of name as per Rule 69.1(i) nor a correction of typographical nature as per Rule 69.1(ii). It is relevant to reproduce paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus: D “4. Having considered the diverse aspects and the admitted factual conspectus on record, we find, the case in hand, is not a case of any change of name, but, a mere correction in the mother’s name of the child Ms. Filza Khan. Apparently, an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the mother’s nickname “Ms. Kiran Khan” in the admission form in the year 2005, got transmitted by the respondent No.2 school to the respondent No.1 Board. The application made by the petitioner was not for any change of name, but, for correction of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the mother in the admission form as “Kiran Khan” instead of “Fakiha Khan”, which fact, undisputedly, finds support from the birth certificate dated 17.12.02, copy whereof forms part of the record as Annexure-P1. This birth certificate clearly mentions that Ms. Filza Khan was born to the petitioner and Ms. Fakiha Khan. The applicant has placed on record other documents, such as the educational certificates of the mother Fakiha Khan, her passport etc., which show that her name always was Fakiha Khan. Thus, it is not a case of change of name of the mother to Kiran Khan, from Fakiha Khan, post the filling up of the examination form of the appellant’s daughter. Pertinently, even in the documents relating to the daughter of the appellant Filza Khan, such as her Birth Certificate, the name of the mother is recorded as “Fakiha Khan” H

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1133 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

and not “Kiran Khan”. Thus, the case in hand is certainly not a A case of change of name as contemplated under Rule 69.1(i). It is also not a case of correction in spelling errors and factual typographical errors as contemplated under Rule 69.1(ii). The case in hand is completely founded on the premise of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the mother in the admission B form, which was filled way back in the year 2005 at the time of admission of the child in class -I. …” The Court, relying upon Mazhar Saleem Chandroth (Minor) Thr. Saleem Chandroth (father and natural guardian) vs. Central Board of Secondary Education10, also observed that the Examination Byelaws of the appellant (CBSE) are not of a statutory nature. The C Court, before parting, further noted that a restrictive and strict approach is not warranted in matters involving correction or change of name by the Board merely on ground of administrative inconvenience. It noted thus: “6. The adoption of a strict and restrictive approach in the matter of change or correction of name of the candidate or his/her parents, in the certificates issued by the respondent No.1, cannot be justified on the foundation that such changes, when made later, may be exploited to mislead all concerned about the identity of the candidate. Such a strict and restrictive approach cannot be justified merely on the ground of some administrative inconvenience. After all, respondent No.1 charges the fee to cover its costs for undertaking such an exercise. ...” Observing that the subject change in the mother’s name would not result into an alteration of identity of the student as the name “Fakiha F Khan” was a part of the documents all along, it noted thus: “6. ...In the present case, there is no possibility of the identity of the candidate Filza Khan being changed by permitting the change of name of her mother from “Kiran Khan” to Fakiha Khan”, since the name of the child/candidate; the name of the father; the date G and place of birth, continue to remain the same. Even the name of the mother – which is now sought to be brought on record, is the real name of the mother which has always remained so and the same name of the mother is also reflected in the Birth Certificate 10 LPA 315/2017 H

p. 1134 Copy page pinpoint

A of the child/candidate Filza Khan. In fact, the non-amendment of the name of the mother of the child/candidate from “Kiran Khan” to “Fakiha Khan” would, in future, lead to confusion and may mar the future prospects of the child/candidate while seeking admissions to institutions of higher education, or employment.”

18Copy pinpoint18. The appellant (CBSE), in this appeal, has submitted that the impugned judgment has incorrectly treated the subject change in mother’s name as a mere correction born out of an inadvertent error. It is submitted that the said change is a complete change of name which was continuously retained in the school records for a period of 11 years. It is urged that the impugned judgment has failed to give effect to Rules 69.1(i) and C 69.1(ii) of the Board as such change of name without an order of the Court and followed by a notification in the official gazette was outrightly prohibited. Justifying the said Rules, it is submitted that the Board has no power or independent sources to verify the identity of the students and owing to the nature of its functioning, it has to rely upon the school records to furnish certificates.

19Copy pinpoint19. The appellant (CBSE) further submits that the records were sent by the school in the academic year 2014-2015 when the student filled the examination form for submission to the Board and the said form not only recorded the mother’s name as “Kiran Khan” but also carried the signature of the mother in the verification portion of the form. To buttress this submission, it is urged that the said mistake (if any) could not have been treated as inadvertent as it was retained as such for a long period of 11 years. It is added that parents themselves were the source of information regarding the name and thus, there could be no reason to regard it as inadvertent. F

20Copy pinpoint20. The appellant has further submitted that the impugned judgment is in conflict with another judgment of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Mazhar Saleem Chandroth11 wherein the prayer for addition of word “Saleem” in the name was not held to be a correction or typographical error and was rejected stating that such change would be G inconsistent with the school record and thus, impermissible. It is added that in such a situation, the Division bench ought to have sent the matter for consideration by a larger bench.

11 H supra at Footnote No.10

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1135 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 1822/2021 A (arising out of SLP (C) No(s) 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020)

21Copy pinpoint21. In this appeal, the appellant (CBSE) has assailed the judgment dated 5.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2225/ B 2019 affirming the decision of learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5287/2019 dated 28.2.2019. The respondent student had approached the Board for correction of his father’s name in the CBSE certificate from “P.P. Abdul Latheef” to Latheef P.A.”. The said request was denied by the Board citing Byelaw 69.1 of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The Board stated that the respondent’s case does not meet the conditions stipulated in the said byelaw and thus, change in name cannot be permitted. Aggrieved by this denial, the respondent moved the High Court. The correction or change of name was then permitted by the High Court upon payment of Rs. 5,000 by the student to the Board for availing its service. The Board appealed against that decision. Affirming the decision, the High Court observed that the decision is in accordance with the decision of a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court in Subin Mohammed vs. Union of India12 wherein a change in date of birth of a student was permitted by the Court. While recognising that the case at hand involved the change of father’s name (and not date of birth), the Court noted the similarity of grounds raised by the appellant before it, and relied upon Subin Mohammed13 to reject the same. It observed thus: “6. Though the issue relates to correction of the petitioner’s father’s name in the CBSE certificate, the grounds on which the appellants had assailed the correctness of the judgment of the writ court are more or less similar, based on the bye-law of the CBSE and the delay in making the application for correction. Except the above, there is no variance. Though Mr. Nirmal S., learned counsel for the appellants, made submissions on the grounds extracted supra assailing the correctness of judgment of the writ court, we are not inclined to accept the said contentions for the reason that a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India and others reported in 2016 (1) KLT 340, has considered the said contentions and rejected the same. ...” 12 2016 (1) KLT 340 13 supra at Footnote No.12 H

p. 1136 Copy page pinpoint

22Copy pinpoint22. The impugned judgment relied upon the respondent’s Birth Certificate dated 25.7.2013 and his father’s Death certificate dated 12.8.2009 to conclude that the father’s name was indeed “Latheef P.A.” in statutory records and there could be no objection in permitting the said change.

23Copy pinpoint23. In its challenge, the primary ground of the appellant is that the reliance placed by the High Court upon Subin Mohammed14 is misplaced. For, the said judgment is inapplicable in the factual matrix of the case. It is submitted that in Subin Mohammed15, the case involved a change in date of birth and the Court had recorded a specific finding that CBSE Byelaws would not permit the said change. It is further submitted that C the Court failed to acknowledge that CBSE Byelaws, though not strictly statutory, have a regulatory colour and must bind those who have chosen to comply with them while participating in the examinations conducted by the Board.

24Copy pinpoint24. The appellant has further submitted that neither Byelaw 69.1(i) D nor 69.1(ii) apply to the facts of the case. It is stated that Byelaw 69.1(i) would apply only when change of name is approved by a Court of law followed by a notification in the official gazette, that too before the declaration of result by the Board. To buttress this submission, it is added that the respondent obtained his birth certificate in 2013, one year before E the matriculation examination in 2014 and thus, there was no difficulty for the respondent in applying for the said change as per Byelaw 69.1(i). According to the appellant (CBSE), the conditions of the aforesaid Byelaws have not been fulfilled by the respondent and in absence thereof, no such changes can be permitted.

25Copy pinpoint25. The appellant has also urged that the reliance upon Birth Certificate and Death Certificate is unwarranted as both these documents were not proved before any Court of law and there is no material on record to establish that “P.P. Abdul Latheef” and “Latheef P.A.” is the same person. The appellant has placed reliance upon Board of Secondary Education of Assam vs. Md. Sarifuz Zaman & Ors. 16 to G further argue that correction of entries in a certificate duly issued by the Board cannot be claimed as a matter of legal right and frequent corrections

14 supra at Footnote No.12 15 supra at Footnote No.12 16 (2003) 12 SCC 408 H

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1137 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

cannot be permitted readily as it would have the effect of rendering this A power arbitrary, in addition to reducing the credibility of certificates issued by the Board. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1823/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7382/2021 B (@ Diary No. 9482/2020)

26Copy pinpoint26. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 20.11.2019 of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 2354/2019 affirming the decision of learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 11876/2018, wherein the respondent student’s prayer for change in date of birth was granted C by the Court. The respondent passed her matriculation examination in

2011. The concerned certificate issued by the Board recorded her date of birth as 28.11.1995. Thereafter, in 2013, the respondent applied for the issuance of Birth Certificate which was issued on 28.6.2013 bearing her date of birth as 21.11.1995. D

27Copy pinpoint27. The respondent applied to the Board for change in date of birth. It was rejected by the Board. The High Court allowed her prayer after placing reliance on Subin Mohammed17. The observations of the High Court are similar to those in civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@Diary No. 9445/2020) and are not being discussed again for brevity. E

28Copy pinpoint28. The appellant (CBSE) has assailed the decision on the ground that the respondent’s case does not fulfil the criteria/conditions for change in date of birth under Byelaws 69.2 and 69.3 of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. It is submitted that as per Byelaw 69.2, change in date of birth is permissible only before the same is recorded in the record of the F Board and despite having sufficient time, the respondent did not approach the Board for any correction on or before 2011. Afterwards, under Byelaw 69.3, corrections of merely typographical or other similar errors are permissible to bring the particulars in consonance with the school record. It is stated that the respondent’s case does not fulfil any of these criteria. G

29Copy pinpoint29. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without granting an opportunity to the appellant for ascertaining the genuineness of the request for change in date of birth, which is a

17 supra at Footnote No.12 H

p. 1138 Copy page pinpoint

A mandatory requirement as per Subin Mohammed18. The appellant has raised a question on the genuineness of the request by stating that even if the incorrect date of birth is treated as an error, it is inconceivable that the appellant or her parents could not notice the error for a period of 23 years.

30Copy pinpoint30. The submissions regarding the inapplicability of the dictum in Subin Mohammed19 are similar to those made in civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020) and are not being repeated for brevity. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1824/2021 C (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7383/2021 (@ Diary No. 14737/2020)

31Copy pinpoint31. In this appeal, the appellant (CBSE) has assailed the judgment dated 13.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan D in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 838/2019 confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18013/2018 in terms of the Byelaws (as amended in 2015 and as applicable to the case).

32Copy pinpoint32. The case involves a request for change of mother’s name of the student in CBSE certificates from “Seema Manak” to “Sanyogeta E Manak”. The respondent participated in the matriculation examination conducted by the Board in May, 2016. In October, 2016, the said request was made when the mother changed her name. The Board denied the request for change of name citing their inability under the Byelaws. Another request was made by the respondent which was met with the same response from the Board. The matter went to the High Court by way of a writ petition and the Court granted the prayer for change of name by holding that the Board failed to perform its duty in denying the request for change of name. The Court took note of the birth certificate of the respondent, copy of passport and copy of Aadhar card of the mother, and also noted that the requirements of newspaper publication and gazette notification were fulfilled. It then directed the Board to effect the change. The Court observed that the CBSE rules cannot prohibit an individual from having his/her identity recognized through the parents

18 supra at Footnote No.12 H 19 supra at Footnote No.12

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1139 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

and if they are applied for denying such corrections, it would be ultra vires the rules as they are not statutory in nature. It observed thus: “In the opinion of this Court such rules framed by CBSE go contrary to the basic principles laid down in the circumstances regarding individual to have his identity recognized from his/her parents, the CBSE cannot be allowed to force any individual to have his mother’s name or his father’s name different from what his/her mother’s name or father’s name is known in the Society as well as in the records. If such rules are applied for denying a candidate from getting correction done in the mark sheet or certificates, the same have to be declared as ultra vires to the rules since the rules not statutory.” C

33Copy pinpoint33. In order to assail the above decision, the appellant has relied upon Byelaws 69.1(i) and 69.1(ii) to contend that Byelaw 69.1(i) provides for change of name of the student only and change of name of parents is not envisaged in it. It is submitted that Byelaw 69.1(ii) provides for corrections and the present case is not one of corrections, rather, it D involves a material change of name. Similar to the submissions advanced in previous appeals, it is submitted that the Board cannot act in violation of their byelaws and permit corrections when the same are not permitted under them. The appellant has urged that they duly applied their mind to the request of the respondent twice and there was no occasion for the E Court to pass an order in complete ignorance of the byelaws.

34Copy pinpoint34. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment holds the byelaws as ultra vires despite the fact that their validity was not even in question before the Court. Reliance has been placed by the appellant upon Md. Sarifuz Zaman20 to urge that there is no vested right to claim F corrections in certificates at any point of time. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1825/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7384/2021 (@ Diary No. 16291/2020) G

35Copy pinpoint35. The challenge in this appeal is against the decision dated 20.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2340/2019 confirming the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 8540/2019, wherein the High Court allowed the prayer for change of the 20 supra at Footnote No.16 H

p. 1140 Copy page pinpoint

A respondent student’s name from “Mohammed Shafeek” to “Mohammed Shafeek S.” in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The respondent passed matriculation examination in 2014. During school, the name of the respondent was recorded as “Mohammed Shafeek” in accordance with the birth certificate issued in 2002. After passing matriculation, another birth certificate was issued in 2017 wherein a different name B i.e., “Mohammed Shafeek S.” was recorded. In accordance with the second birth certificate, the respondent approached the Board for change of name which was denied by the Board citing failure to fulfil the conditions envisaged in the Byelaws. The High Court granted the prayer by placing reliance upon the dictum in Subin Mohammed21.

36Copy pinpoint36. The reasoning adopted by the High Court is similar to that in civil appeals arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/ 2020) and SLP (C) No(s).7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020), and we are not reiterating the same.

37Copy pinpoint37. Assailing the decision, the appellant’s submissions are largely similar to those in previous appeals. Other than grounds already urged before, the appellant has submitted that the Court failed to consider the presence of two birth certificates and went on to grant the prayer without weighing the genuineness of the certificates and without seeking an explanation from the respondent for bringing two birth certificates on record.

38Copy pinpoint38. It is submitted that in 2004, while taking admission in class I, the respondent’s name was recorded as “Mohammed Shafeek”. The same name was carried forward while filling the admission form again in 2008 for a different school. It is further submitted that even at the time of filling the form for class XI, the same name was recorded and it was duly communicated by the school to the Board. The name recorded in the certificate, therefore, is in complete accordance with the school record. To buttress this submission, it is urged that the record clearly shows that there is no possibility of typographical error in the record of the respondent and a subsequent substantial change of name cannot be permitted in the certificates of the Board in this manner. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1826/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10927/2020)

21 H supra at Footnote No.12

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1141 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

39Copy pinpoint39. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated A 24.8.2020 passed by the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 219/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 10841/ 2019 wherein the respondent student’s prayer for addition of surname was granted in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The respondent passed the examinations conducted by the Board under the name “Jyoti”. B The name was consistently recorded as such in all her school records and accordingly, the CBSE certificates carried the same name. Thereafter, she completed her MBBS and applied for education in a foreign institution. As a part of her application, she was asked to mention her surname. Since none of her documents carried this information, she applied to the Board for addition of surname and change her name from C “Jyoti” to “Jyoti Dalal” in the certificates. The Board refused and the respondent approached the High Court.

40Copy pinpoint40. The High Court considered the applicability of Byelaws 69.1(i) and 69.1(ii) and ruled that the said byelaws are inapplicable to the facts of the case as the respondent’s case is not one for change of name but for incorporation of a surname which existed throughout in the records of her parents and for which no ambiguity could be alleged. It observed thus: “8. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case, we are of the opinion that the same does not fall under the ambit of Clause 69(1)(i) of the Examination Bye-Laws as:- a) This is not a case of change of name, but of incorporation of the surname of the person concerned, b) This is not a case where something which was altogether omitted is to be added, as the parents’ names were available in full in the records of the appellant-Board, c) The respondent (original petitioner) in this case carries the surname of the father and the mother which she wanted to mention after her name. There is no dispute about her identity or confusion about the veracity of the name which she seeks to incorporate.” Before parting, the High Court specifically noted that its decision must not be treated as a precedent and would operate on the specific facts of the case. H

p. 1142 Copy page pinpoint

41Copy pinpoint41. The appellant has assailed the decision by contending that any request for change of name is to be examined as per Byelaw 69.1(i) and not beyond it. If such change is not permissible under the said byelaw, then it would be wholly improper for the Court to direct such changes. It is contended that there was no challenge to the validity of the byelaws, and until and unless the byelaws are declared to be invalid, the Court B cannot direct any action in complete contravention thereof. As urged in previous cases, it is added that the respondent’s case failed to fulfil the condition precedent in the said byelaw – prior approval by a Court of law followed by publication in gazette – and the impugned order had the effect of diluting these conditions.

42Copy pinpoint42. The appellant has submitted that the relief claimed by the respondent is highly delayed in time and in law, delay defeats discretion. It is urged that the respondent was always aware of the absence of surname in her records and she kept on sleeping on her rights for a period of seven years and therefore, the loss of limitation must bar any legal remedy for her. It is further submitted that such changes cannot be permitted in a routine manner as the credibility attached with CBSE certificates would be compromised and subsequent changes would create anomalies in the record. Reliance has been placed upon Abhishek Kumar @ Bal Kishan vs. Union of India & Ors.22 to urge that subsequent issuance of revised certificates would create discrepancy in the record and reflect status which did not even exist at the time of making certificates.

43Copy pinpoint43. The appellant has submitted that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this manner is unwarranted as it amounts to substitution of the views of the Court in the place of byelaws formulated on the basis of technical advice. It is urged that the Court must be reluctant to venture into academic matters in this manner. CIVIL APPEAL NO.1827/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10948/2020)

44Copy pinpoint44. The challenge in this appeal is against the decision dated 13.7.2020 by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 863/2020 confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 21357/2019, wherein the respondent student’s prayer for change in date of birth was granted on the basis of the birth certificate in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as H 22 (2014) 144 DRJ 8 (DB) : 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3459

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1143 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

applicable. The observations of the High Court are similar to those in civil appeals arising from SLP (C) No(s).7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/ 2020), SLP (C) No(s).7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020) and SLP (C) No(s).7384/2021 (@ Diary No. 16291/2020). We are not reiterating the same for the sake of brevity.

45Copy pinpoint45. On perusal of the submissions, we find that the grounds urged for assailing the decision are also similar to those taken in previous appeals and we are not repeating the same.

46Copy pinpoint46. In addition to grounds already advanced, the respondent has filed elaborate written submissions and additional written submissions to which we may make a brief reference. It is submitted that as per Byelaw C 7 of the Examination Byelaws, the admission procedure upto class VIII is to be regulated by rules/regulations/orders of the concerned State Government. Accordingly, reference has been made to the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and Chapter-VI of Rules framed thereunder which provides that the primary source for determining date of birth is birth certificate. It is submitted that even under the Right to Education Act, D the primary proof of age is the birth certificate and therefore, primacy has to be accorded to birth certificate for determination of correct date of birth and CBSE’s Byelaws must provide for bringing their certificates in accord with such official or public documents.

47Copy pinpoint47. In additional written submissions, the respondent has answered E this Court’s query as to what would be the relevant point of time for determining the application of byelaws. It is submitted that the relevant date would be the date of considering the application i.e., the Byelaws in force at the time of considering the application for recording correction/ change. The date of examination would be irrelevant for this purpose. F Reliance has been placed upon Somdev Kapoor vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.23 and State of Kerala & Ors. vs. Palakkad Heritage Hotels24 to advance the legal proposition that rules standing on the date of final decision by the competent authority would be applicable. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1828/2021 G (arising out of SLP (C) No(s).7385/2021 (@ Diary No. 18711/2020)

23 (2014) 14 SCC 486 24 (2017) 13 SCC 672 H

p. 1144 Copy page pinpoint

48Copy pinpoint48. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2328/2019 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 8465/2019 wherein the respondent student’s request for change in date of birth was allowed. The case of the respondent is that his date of birth was recorded as 16.4.1994 instead of 16.4.1995 in the school records. On B the basis of the birth certificate and other supporting documents, the respondent applied for change in date of birth which was rejected by the appellant Board citing the 2007 Examination Byelaws.

49Copy pinpoint49. The High Court allowed the change on grounds similar to those in the previous appeals. We are not repeating the same. C

50Copy pinpoint50. The submissions of the appellant Board are also similar to those in previous appeals and there is no need to reiterate the same. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1829/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10959/2020) D

51Copy pinpoint51. The appellant Board has assailed the decision dated 3.7.2020 passed by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 450/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 8808/2019 allowing the respondent student’s prayer for change of her father’s and mother’s names in the certificates issued by the CBSE. Citing it as an error, a E request was made by the respondent for change of name of father from “Vinod Mittal” to “Vinod Kumar Jain” and mother from “Meenakshi Mittal” to “Meenakshi Agarwal”.

52Copy pinpoint52. The High Court did not consider the permissibility of this change under the applicable Byelaws (as amended in 2018) and instead noted that no prejudice would be caused to the Board if the said changes are allowed. It observed thus: “It is noticed that in the writ petition, respondent seeks only to amend the surname of her parents and not their names. On a query by this Court from the counsel for the appellants that on account of change of surname, what prejudice was going to be caused to the appellants, he has failed to give any response.”

53Copy pinpoint53. The submissions advanced by the appellant are substantially similar to those adopted in previous appeals. Non-applicability of Byelaws, absence of any typographical error, consonance between school record and certificates, and lapse of substantial time despite knowing the alleged

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1145 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

errors are primary submissions which form the basis of this challenge. A We are not elaborating upon the same to avoid repetition. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1830/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10801/2020

54Copy pinpoint54. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated B 4.6.2020 passed by the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 697/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 11791/ 2019, wherein the respondent student’s request for change in date of birth was allowed in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The respondent’s case was that her date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 22.3.1990 instead of 21.6.1989. The High Court allowed the prayer C on grounds similar to those in appeals arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/ 2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7384/2021 (@ Diary No. 16291/2020) and SLP (C) No(s). 7385/2021 (@ Diary No. 18711/2020). We are not reiterating the same. D

55Copy pinpoint55. Having gone through the appeal memo, we note that the submissions are similar to those in previous appeals and we are not repeating them. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1831/2021 E (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10795/2020)

56Copy pinpoint56. In this appeal, the challenge is against the decision dated 6.8.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 987/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25663/ 2019, wherein the respondent student’s prayer for change of name of his mother and father was allowed and accordingly, CBSE was directed to modify the certificates.

57Copy pinpoint57. Originally, the school records and CBSE certificates recorded the father’s name as “Shaji” and mother’s name as “Jijimol”. These names were in also in accordance with the old birth certificate of the respondent dated 27.10.2002. As stated by the respondent, they noticed this mistake for the first time in 2018 after CBSE released the respondent’s Secondary School Examination certificate on 29.5.2018. Thereafter, the respondent applied for issuance of fresh birth certificate wherein father’s name was changed from “Shaji” to “Shaji P.” and mother’s name from “Jijimol” to “Jijimol S.”. It was issued on 27.10.2018 H

p. 1146 Copy page pinpoint

A and in furtherance thereof, the respondent applied to the appellant Board for changing the certificates in light of the changed names. The Board refused that request citing the Byelaws (as amended in 2018) and the matter reached the High Court.

58Copy pinpoint58. The grounds that weighed upon the High Court while granting B the prayer are substantially similar to those in civil appeals arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7384/2021 (@ Diary No. 16291/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7385/2021 (@ Diary No. 18711/ 2020) and SLP (C) No. 10801/2020.

59Copy pinpoint59. The grounds urged by the appellant are similar to those in previous appeals and we are not reiterating the same.

60Copy pinpoint60. The respondent has filed written submissions to submit that the present case does not involve any delay in applying for change of name as they took prompt action upon receiving the CBSE certificates D and realizing the defect, and applied for a new birth certificate so that changes could be made at the earliest. It is also submitted that it is not a case of change of name or correcting a mistake in name per se. Rather, it is a case of merely including initials of mother and father in their respective names in accordance with a duly modified birth certificate which leaves no question as regards the genuineness of record. E CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1832/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10796/2020)

61Copy pinpoint61. In this appeal, the appellant (Board) has challenged the decision dated 19.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2513/ F 2019 confirming the decision of learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 14384/2019, wherein the respondent student’s prayer for change of name from “Vaibhav R.” to “Vaibhav D.” in certificates issued by the Board was allowed in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable.

62Copy pinpoint62. The impugned judgment requires no discussion as it is reasoned G in similar terms, as already delineated above.

63Copy pinpoint63. The grounds urged by the appellant have already been urged in previous appeals and we need not repeat them. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1833/2021

JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER 1147 HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE) [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

(arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7386/2021 A (@ Diary No. 19181/2020)

64Copy pinpoint64. The appellant Board herein has impugned the decision dated 8.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2207/2019 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 10410/ 2019, wherein the respondent student’s prayer for change in his date of B birth was allowed on the basis of the birth certificate issued by the appropriate authority in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable.

65Copy pinpoint65. The impugned judgment requires no elaboration as it is reasoned in similar terms, as already delineated above. C

66Copy pinpoint66. The grounds urged by the appellant have already been urged in previous appeals and we need not repeat them. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1834/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11320/2020) D

67Copy pinpoint67. The appellant (CBSE) has approached this Court for assailing the decision dated 12.5.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 499/2020 declining to interfere with the decision of the District Judge, Karnal who upheld the decision of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Assandh in Civil Suit No. 204/2018 wherein, a declaratory relief was granted in favour of the respondent student declaring his date of birth as 7.5.2004 instead of 15.2.2001, father’s name as “Joginder” instead of “Joginder Singh” and mother’s name as “Darshan” instead of “Darshan Devi” (as mentioned in the CBSE certificate). The declaratory relief was coupled with a mandatory injunction directing the appellant Board to effect necessary changes in the certificates of the respondent.

68Copy pinpoint68. The High Court referred to the birth certificate issued by the authorities under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and noted that correctness of the certificate is not under dispute and thus, the information recorded in the certificate cannot be questioned. It observed thus: G

“As far as correctness of the certificate issued by the authorities under the 1969 Act, identity of the plaintiff as also correctness in the names of his parents are not disputed.”