MS. JIGYA YADAV THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER MR. HARI SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is a minor, through her father, challenges the constitutionality and legality of Bye -law 69.1(i) of Central Board of Secondary Education Examination Bye -laws, primarily on the ground that it does not permit any correction in name, either of the candidate or his/her parents in the school certificate unless such correction/alteration matches with the school records. The impugned Bye -law 69.1 reads as under:

(2.) IT is the Petitioner's case that her parents' names have been incorrectly recorded as 'Hari Singh Yadav' and 'Mamta Yadav' instead of 'Hari Singh' and 'Mamta' respectively. According to Ms. Indira Unninayar, learned Counsel for Petitioner, simply getting an inadvertent error made by oversight in school records is simply getting perpetuated because the aforesaid Bye -law does not permit any correction in class X or XII certificates as they do not tally with the school records. In this connection, Ms. Indira draws our attention to the Petitioner's birth certificate wherein the parent's names have been mentioned as 'Hari Singh' and 'Mamta'.

(3.) MS . Indira submits that the impugned Bye -law leaves no recourse to candidates for correction of names of their parents and, thus it is a case of passing arbitrary bye -laws by Respondent by not using relevant considerations such as hardship caused to students and balance of convenience, etc. According to Ms. Indira, even if an inadvertent error has been made by Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to correct the same instead of being forced to repeat the error. She further submits that Respondent No. 1 has illegally constrained/fettered its powers in the limited interest of its own efficiency thereby sacrificing the cause of justice in individual cases including that of the Petitioner. In this context, she relies upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Indian Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board : (1975) 2 SCC 414, J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. : (1991) 2 SCC 283 and judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 3577/2008 titled as Dhruva Parate v. CBSE and Anr. decided on 23rd March, 2009 wherein it has been held that an executive agency operating within the field of its discretion, cannot unduly fetter or circumscribe its own rights.