VIRENDER YADAV Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondents to carry out necessary correction in their records by reflecting the correct name of the father of the petitioner therein, which is Shri Jhabbu Lal Yadav instead of Shri Ram Govind Yadav, who it is stated is the uncle of the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the petitioner was five years old when he shifted to Delhi in the year 1986 and started residing with his paternal uncle. On account of an inadvertent mistake, the name of the petitioners uncle, who was his local guardian, was recorded as the name of the father of the petitioner in the records of the educational institutions, where the petitioner was studying. As a result, when the petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination in the year 1997 from respondent No.3/School, the School Leaving Certificate and the Mark-Sheet of the Secondary School Examination issued in his favour mentioned the name of his uncle as that of his father. Again, in the year 1999, when the petitioner passed the Senior Secondary School Examination, the same error was repeated. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any steps either in the year 1997, at the time of clearing class 10 examinations or in the year 1999, at the time of clearing his class 12 examinations, nor for a period of about 14 years thereafter, to point out this error to respondent No.3/School or to respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that there is no explanation that has come forth from the petitioner as to the reason for the complete silence maintained by him for almost 14 years before approaching CBSE by way of a representation for seeking change of the name of his father in the records of the Board. IT is also relevant to note that even as per the petitioner, his passport as also his PAN card show the correct name of his father, hence at this stage, there is no exigency sown by the petitioner for the name of his father to be changed in the records of respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE so belatedly. Further, the rejection order passed by the respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE is in terms of the extant rules and no legal flaw has been pointed out by the petitioner in the decision taken by the respondent. In these circumstances, there is no justification for this Court to interfere in the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by respondents No.1 and 2/CBSE, rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of his fathers name after a passage of about 14 years. The petition is therefore dismissed in limine as being devoid of merits.