# Pooja Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 460 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-07-18 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 21402 of 2023 - **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pooja-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50670 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote C.S.C., Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, Sri Hridai Narain Pandey Held - Request for change of name in educational records, when based on self - acquired name by choice, must be preceded by declaration from a competent Civil Court and publication in the Official Gazette, as per guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav Vs CBSE (2021) 7 SCC 535. The Court, relying upon paragraph 171 of said judgment, held that CBSE is not an adjudicating authority for such name changes and cannot bypass procedural safeguards. Power to grant declaratory relief regarding a person's legal status, including name, vests exclusively in Civil Courts under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Case Law Discussed: ## Text 460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES conduct, explore possibilities of excellence and redeem his reputation. In matters pertaining to errant behaviour by students such approach may make the action vulnerable to judicial review on grounds of disproportionality. 22. Disproportionality vitiates punitive action. [See: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and others2] 23. The punishment is disproportionate and is liable to be set aside on this count as well. 24. The impugned order dated 25.02.2020 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 16.03.2020 rusticating for various periods are arbitrary and illegal. The impugned orders dated 25.02.2020 and 16.03.2020 are unsustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. 25. In this wake, the application of the B Cap is unsustainable in law and is set aside. 26. The respondent-university is directed to issue a fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner treating him as a regular student. The fresh marksheet shall evaluate the applicant out of the 100 marks. The respondent-University shall remove the B cap and shall also refrain from making any reference to the disciplinary action against the petitioner and delete the endorsement "reappearance in September, 2020" in the fresh mark-sheet. The disciplinary action against the petitioner shall not be disclosed by the university to any other authority. 27. The writ petition is allowed. ---------- (2023) 8 ILRA 460 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. Writ C No. 21402 of 2023 Pooja Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Krishnam Pandey, Sri Aman Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, Sri Hridai Narain Pandey Held - Request for change of name in educational records, when based on self - acquired name by choice, must be preceded by declaration from a competent Civil Court and publication in the Official Gazette, as per guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav Vs CBSE (2021) 7 SCC 535. The Court, relying upon paragraph 171 of said judgment, held that CBSE is not an adjudicating authority for such name changes and cannot bypass procedural safeguards. Power to grant declaratory relief regarding a person's legal status, including name, vests exclusively in Civil Courts under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Case Law Discussed: 1. Jigya Yadav (Minor) through guardian/father Hari Singh Vs Central Board of Secondary Education & ors., (2021) 7 SCC 535 2. Rashmi Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ - C No. 16056 of 2021 Petition disposed off with liberty to seek declaration from competent Civil Court. Upon compliance, the Board shall consider the case in light of Supreme Court's directions. 8 All. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 461 (Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.) 1. Heard Sri Krishnam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3, Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and perused the record. 2. The grievance raised by the writ petitioner is that her name be changed from Pooja Devi to Pooja Yadav in Class 10th and 12th Marks-sheet as well as certificate. 3. It is contended that the petitioner now wants to be known by the name of Pooja Yadav in place of Pooja Devi. 4. The writ petition has been opposed by all the respondents and it has been argued that the identical controversy has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.06.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011 (Jigya Yadav (Minor) through guardian/father Hari Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others), reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535. In fact, learned counsel for both sides have placed reliance upon the same judgment and it has been argued that even if the Apex Court has permitted change of name, different categories have been spelt out in the judgment of Jigya Yadav (supra). Reference to paragraph no.171 has been made, which reads as follows:- "171. 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. (a) 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 along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten). (b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be 462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that the Supreme Court had dealt with two categories of situations under which change of name could be sought. The first category relates to those cases where, on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate/ Adhaar Card/ Election Card, etc., change of name is sought in the CBSE certificate consistent to the said record and the second category relates to those situations where a person wants to acquire name by choice at a later point of time. The Apex Court has held that such change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate, but request in this regard may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/ declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has also referred to paragraphs no.156 and 157 of the same judgment and has argued that the Apex Court has insisted upon obtaining a declaration by the civil court. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon another decision of this Court contained in the order dated 18.07.2022 passed in Writ-C No.16056 of 2021 (Rashmi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others), I find that this Court, even in the said judgment, has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra) and issued a direction for making an application before the Board in consonance with the said judgment. 8. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 needs to be referred here in so far as the power of civil court to grant a declaration with regard to status of a person is concerned. The said provision reads as under:- "34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.?Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make 8 All. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Prescribed Authority/ SDO Sadar, Mirzapur & Ors. 463 therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so." 9. It is clear from Section 34 of the Act, 1963, that power to grant or declare status as the petitioner desires, vests exclusively in Civil Court that is competent enough to grant such decree. 10. Once the Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra) has emphasized upon obtaining a declaration from a civil court with regard to the name which a person wants to adopt by choice, this Court cannot take a different view and therefore deciding this case on the same lines, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to obtain a declaration from the civil court with regard to her claim and once such a declaration is obtained, she is at liberty to approach the Board with appropriate documents. 11. In case such requirements are completed at the end of petitioner and the representation is made along with necessary documents through proper channel i.e. through Principal of the College before the Board, the Board shall consider the same in the light of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra). ---------- (2023) 8 ILRA 463 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. Writ C No. 23513 of 2022 Dinesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Prescribed Authority/ SDO Sadar, Mirzapur & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, Sri Prem Prakash Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Kanchan Keshri, Sri Kuldeep Mishra Held: In election petitions under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the application of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited by Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. The Sub - Divisional Officer is not required to record evidence in full and may restrict evidence to only what is deemed relevant. Reliance on Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and Section 137 of the Evidence Act is misplaced, as Rule 4 (Proviso ii & iv) forms a complete special procedure which overrides the general provisions of CPC. Earlier judgment in Arunesh Vs Prescribed Authority/S.D.O. Gonda and Ram Adhar Singh Vs District Judge not applicable being rendered per incuriam as they did not consider the said specific provisos. Key Case Law Discussed: 1. Arunesh Vs Prescribed Authority/S.D.O. Gonda, Writ C No. 2904 of 2004 2. Ram Adhar Singh Vs District Judge, 1985 All WC 246 Petition dismissed with direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the pending election petition expeditiously, preferably within two months. (Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) 1. Heard Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.