HC junks minor's plea to change name in his school records

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 29 2017 | 11:48 AM IST
The Delhi High Court has turned down the plea of a minor student seeking a direction to CBSE to change his name in all the records maintained by the Board and issue a fresh mark-sheet and certificate of Class-X examination which he had passed in 2015.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal has observed that as per the amended Bye-Law 69.1(i) of June 25, 2015, a request for change in the name can be considered only where the change has been admitted by the court of law and notified in the government gazette before the declaration of the result of the candidate.
"...Since the change of the student's name was carried out after declaration of the result on May 28, 2015 his request for change of name in the school records and certificates was rejected in terms of the amended Rule 69.1(i) (changes and corrections in name)," it said.
The bench was of the opinion that having failed to challenge the vires of the amended Rule, it was not open to him to contend that amended Rule, which disentitled candidates to seek correction or change in the name within ten years, is arbitrary and illegal.
The court's order came on the plea of the student who appealed against the single judge's December 2016 order, which had also refused to direct the authorities to change his name.
The boy appeared for Class-X Board Examination (All-India Secondary School Examination) conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education in March 2015, and the result was declared on May 28, 2015.
Thereafter, he got his name changed and a public notice was issued to that effect in the newspapers in June 2015 along with a notification in the Gazette of India on December 5, 2015.
On the basis of the same, he made an application before CBSE seeking change of his name in the school certificates/ records.
However, on February 3, 2016, CBSE had informed him that the request for change of name had not been allowed by the competent authority in view of Rule 69.1(i) of the Examination Bye-laws duly notified on June 25, 2015.
Aggrieved by the same, the student challenged CBSE's decision before the single judge.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 29 2017 | 11:48 AM IST

Next Story