# Rashmi Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 108
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 16056 of 2021
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rashmi-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48724
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Akhilesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Gyanendra Kr. Srivastava, Prashant Kumar
Tripathi

A. Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a)
- Fundamental right to change the name -
Intent to change the name was declared
by making publication
- Name was
changed in Aadhar Card as well as in PAN
also,
however,
the
application
for
changing
the
name
in
Education
certificate was rejected on the ground
that it was made beyond the prescribed
limitation provided under Regulation 7 of
the
Regulations
framed
under
the
Intermediate
Education
Act
1921
-
Validity challenged - Held, right to change
the name is a facet of fundamental right
as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of
the Constitution of India - Kabir Jaiswal's
case and Jigya Yadav's case relied upon -
The foundation based upon which the
impugned
orders
have
been
passed
namely that the request was made beyond
7 All. Rashmi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
109
the limitation prescribed under Regulation
7 is wholly untenable and the same
militates against the law laid down in the
case of Anand Singh Vs U.P. Board of
Secondary Education - Stand taken by the
respondents denying the petitioner's right
to change her name clearly violates her
rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India. (Para 9, 10
and 11)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Again in Alaska Tech Vs. State of
U.P. 2014 (6) ADJ 591, a Division Bench
of this Court observed as under:

"2. We are of the view that, in a
matter of this nature which pertains to
alleged non-payment of dues under a
contract for supply of goods, it would neither
be prudent nor judicious for this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, to grant relief, which is in
substance, is a prayer for a money decree.
These matters, it must be emphasized, are not
those relating to statutory contracts but are
purely non-statutory contracts. Whether work
has been satisfactorily performed, whether
the rates which had been quoted are in
accordance with the terms of the contract,
whether the goods were of a quality as
mandated, and above all, whether the claim
is within limitation or otherwise, are issues
which cannot appropriately be adjudicated
upon under Article 226 of the Constitution."

10. The same view has been reiterated
in M/S Goyal Stationary Mart through its
Proprietor State of U.P. (Misc. Bench No.
10971 of 2015) decided on 27.11.2015; Budh
Gramin Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (7)
ADJ 29; Kaka Advertising Agency Vs. U.P.
Technical University and others 2014 (11)
ADJ 227; M/s A.K. Constructions Vs. State
of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 1909
of 2014) decided on 07.03.2014; Major
Travels through Proprietor Vs. State of
U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 3472 of
2014)
decided
on
25.04.2014;
and
Uttaranchal
Paper
Converters
and
Publishers through Proprietor Vs. State of
U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 3898 of
2015) decided on 13.05.2014.

11. In view thereof, we are clearly of
the view that mandamus sought by
petitioner
cannot
be
granted
in
extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. Dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.
----------
(2022)07ILR A108
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 16056 of 2021

Rashmi Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Yogeshwar Sharan
Srivasta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Akhilesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Gyanendra Kr. Srivastava, Prashant Kumar
Tripathi

A. Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a)
- Fundamental right to change the name -
Intent to change the name was declared
by making publication
- Name was
changed in Aadhar Card as well as in PAN
also,
however,
the
application
for
changing
the
name
in
Education
certificate was rejected on the ground
that it was made beyond the prescribed
limitation provided under Regulation 7 of
the
Regulations
framed
under
the
Intermediate
Education
Act
1921
-
Validity challenged - Held, right to change
the name is a facet of fundamental right
as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of
the Constitution of India - Kabir Jaiswal's
case and Jigya Yadav's case relied upon -
The foundation based upon which the
impugned
orders
have
been
passed
namely that the request was made beyond
7 All. Rashmi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
109
the limitation prescribed under Regulation
7 is wholly untenable and the same
militates against the law laid down in the
case of Anand Singh Vs U.P. Board of
Secondary Education - Stand taken by the
respondents denying the petitioner's right
to change her name clearly violates her
rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India. (Para 9, 10
and 11)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Anand Singh Vs U.P. Board of Secondary
Education & ors.; (2014) 3 ADJ 443 (DB)
2. Kabir Jaiswal Vs U.O.I. & ors.; AIR 2021 All
96
3. Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011; Jigya Yadav
(Minor) Vs CBSE & ors. decided on 03.06.2021
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan
Srivastava, the counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Saharsh Srivastava, the counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2, Sri Akhilesh Kumar
Srivastava the counsel fro the respondent
no.3 and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,
the counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 11.04.2019
(Annexure 1) as well as the order dated
22.03.2022 passed by the respondent no.2,
as contained in Annexure no.15.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to the
petition are as under :

4. The petitioner whose name as
recorded in the educational records is Rajni
Shrivastava and she wanted to change her
name to Rashmi Srivastava and, as such,
took steps for getting the same intent
published
in
the
newspapers.
The
publication
was
carried
out
in
the
newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' and 'Hindustan
Times' as well as in the Gazette of India. In
pursuance to the said publications, the
petitioner desirous of changing the name in
the school records, moved an application.
In the High School Examination, the name
of the petitioner was recorded as Rajni
Shrivastava, she took the examination in
the year 2009 and thereafter completed her
intermediate examination in the year 2011.
Thereafter the petitioner pursued her
graduations studies and she qualified in the
year 2015 with the same name i.e. Rajni
Srivastava. The petitioner also claims to
have got herself registered with the Council
for the Nursing and Midwives, U.P. and
was also issued a certificate and identity
card with the name Rajni Srivastava.

5. After getting the publication done,
with an intent to change her name from
Rajni Shrivastava to Rashmi Srivastava, the
petitioner moved an appropriate application
to Aadhar authorities and in terms of the
said application, the name was changed
from
Rajni
Shrivastava
to
Rashmi
Srivastava
in
Aadhar
Card
and
subsequently on her moving an application,
the name was changed in the Permanent
Account Number (PAN) issued by the
Ministry of Finance. As there arose a
discrepancy in the Aadhar Card, PAN Card
and the Bank Account on one hand as
contrasted
with
the
High
School
Certificate, the Intermediate Certificate and
the Graduation Certificate where the name
of the petitioner was recorded as Rajni
Shrivastava, the petitioner preferred a writ
petition before this Court being a Writ
Petition No.2219 of 2019 (MS). The said
writ
petition
was
disposed
off
on
25.01.2019 permitting the petitioner to
move an appropriate application with
directions to the respondents to pass a
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasoned order in the said application. The
application of the petitioner was rejected
vide order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure 1)
mainly on the ground that in terms of the
mandate of the provisions as contained in
the
Regulations
under
Chapter
III
Regulation 7 of the Regulations framed
under the Intermediate Education Act 1921
that the said request was beyond the
prescribed
limitation
under
the
said
Regulations. The similar representation of
the
petitioner
before
the
University
authorities and the other authorities were
rejected on the ground that unless the
correction as desired by the petitioner is
made in the High School records, no
consequent action can be taken.

6.

When
again
the
petitioner
approached this Court by filing the present
petition, this Court by means of an interim
order
dated
30.07.2021
directed
the
authorities to reconsider the grievance of
the petitioner in the light of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Anand Singh vs.
U.P. Board of Secondary Education and
others (2014) 3 ADJ 443 (DB) and in the
case of Kabir Jaiswal vs. Union of India
and others; AIR 2021 All 96. On the basis
of the said order, the petitioner once again
approached the respondent authorities and
by means of the subsequent order, the
request has been rejected once again on
22.03.2022. An amendment application was
filed seeking to challenge the subsequent
order dated 22.03.2022.

7. The counsel for the petitioner
argues that right to change the name has
been held is a facet of fundamental right as
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India, as such, he argues
that the respondents could not have denied
the claim of the petitioner. He further
argues that the ground of limitation as
taken by the respondents while passing the
impugned order is wholly unjustified. He
draws my attention to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Anand Singh vs. State
of U.P. (supra) wherein this court while
interpreting the Regulation 7 of Chapter III
came to the conclusion and recorded as
under :-

"The
substantive
part
of
Regulation 7 provides for the correction of
such entries in the certificate which have
arisen because of any inadvertent clerical
mistake or omission in the records of the
Board or the Institution last attended by the
candidate. It also provides that for this
purpose, the candidate has to submit an
application within three years of the date of
issue of the certificate. However, under the
proviso, any spelling mistake occurring in
the name of the applicant or in the name of
the
applicant's
father/mother
in
the
certificate can be corrected when an
application is filed for this purpose. The
nature of the error which is contemplated
in the substantive part of Regulation 7 is
not the same as contemplated in its proviso
nor is any time limit set out in the proviso.

It would be useful to examine the
particulars of the candidate that are
contained in a certificate issued by the
Board. They include the year of the
examination, the name of the candidate, the
names of the parents, date of birth, subjects
opted, division obtained, name of the
School/Centre,
certificate
number,
appearance as a regular/private candidate
and the date of issue of the certificate. Of
these, the date of birth, the subjects opted,
the year of examination and the division
obtained by the candidate are particulars
which have an important bearing when
admission to higher classes or employment
is sought by the candidate. While making
any correction in the entries relating to
7 All. Rashmi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
111
these matters, the requirement of moving
the application within three years has to be
adhered to as any correction in regard to
these entries would have an impact on the
rights of other candidates when they seek
admission to higher classes or employment.
However, the other particulars contained in
the certificate, like the name of the
candidate or the names of the parents of the
candidate are not that relevant and any
correction made in regard to these
particulars would have no impact on the
admission
or
employment
of
other
candidates. When so considered, we feel
persuaded to hold that the time limit of
three years prescribed in the substantive
part of Regulation 7 for submission of an
application for making correction in the
certificate issued by the Board in regard to
the name of the candidate or the names of
the parents of the candidate should not be
insisted upon, particularly when the Board
itself has considered it appropriate to have
no time limit under the proviso for making
correction in regard to any spelling mistake
in the name of the candidate or his parents.
The applicant must, however, explain to the
Board the reasons on the basis of which the
application could not be submitted earlier
and if it is found that the claim is bona fide
and is otherwise justified, there is no
reason to reject the application, as in the
present case, merely on the ground of delay.
Undoubtedly, the Board has to examine
whether any genuine ground has been
made out for correcting the name and it
would be open to the Board to consider all
the relevant materials pertaining to the
request for correction of the name. "

8. He has further drawn my attention
to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) vs. CBSE
and others [Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011
decided on 03.06.2021] wherein the Apex
Court considered the various judgments of
the various High Courts and recorded as
under :

"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
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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.

172. In light of the above, in
exercise of our plenary jurisdiction, we
direct the CBSE to process the applications
for correction or change, as the case may
be, in the certificate issued by it in the
respective cases under consideration. Even
other pending applications and future
applications for such request be processed
on the same lines and in particular the
conclusion and directions recorded hitherto
in paragraphs 170 and 171, as may be
applicable, until amendment of relevant
Byelaws. Additionally, the CBSE shall take
immediate steps to amend its relevant
Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated
mechanism for recording correction or
change, as the case may be, in the
certificates already issued or to be issued
by it."

9. In the light of the judgment in the
cases of Kabir Jaiswal and Jigya Yadav
(supra), it is now clearly well settled that
right to change the name is a facet of
fundamental right as guaranteed under
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of
India and cannot be denied. The said right
can be exercised in the manner prescribed
in the directions as contained in paragraph
171 and 172 of the judgment of Jigya
Yadav (supra), as recorded above.

10. In the present case, the foundation
based upon which the impugned orders
have been passed namely that the request
was made beyond the limitation prescribed
under Regulation 7 is wholly untenable and
the same militates against the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Anand
Singh vs. U.P. Board of Secondary
Education (supra).

11. In view of the law as laid down and
discussed above, the stand taken by the
respondents denying the petitioner's right to
change her name clearly violates her rights
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India and not sustainable and
is liable to be set aside. Thus, the orders
dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure 1) and the
order dated 22.03.2022 (Annexure 15) are
set aside. The petitioner is directed to move
an appropriate application afresh along with
a copy of this order and the documents
including the Aadhar Card and the PAN
Card before the respondent no.2 along with
the original certificate and mark-sheet. On
7 All. Ashwani Pratap Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
113
receiving such application, the respondent
no.2 is directed to carry out the desired
change of name in the mark-sheet and
Certificate. However, it is clarified that in
the fresh certificate and mark-sheet issued to
the petitioner, it would contain the name
'Rashmi
Srivastava
alias/nee,
Rajni
Shrivastava'. The said exercise shall be
completed by the respondent no.2 within six
weeks from the date of filing of the
application. The petitioner shall thereupon
be entitled to file the application before the
respondents no.3 and 4 along with original
records who shall also make the necessary
corrections
in
the
educational
certificates/records issued to the petitioner in
the light of the said fresh certificate issued to
the respondent no.2. It is further directed
that the respondent no.2 shall carry out the
necessary corrections in the intermediate
examination records of the petitioner also
which shall be in consonance with the name
change, as recorded in the High School
Certificate in terms of the directions given
above.

12. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition stands disposed off.
----------
(2022)07ILR A113
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 41628 of 2018

Ashwani Pratap ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinayak Mithal
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Srivastava

A. Land Law - UP Municipal Corporation
Act, 1959 - Sections 3 & 126 - UP
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 - Section 117(6) - Lease of the
banjar land - Power of Nagar Nigam -
After
auction,
the
highest
bidder
deposited 25% premium amount - Nonexecution of the lease - Permissibility -
Held, since, Nagar Nigam is now having no
right, title or interest in the subject land,
it also cannot transfer any right in favour
of the petitioner, nor is competent to
execute any lease deed. (Para 11)
B. Compensation - Fault committed by the
Nagar Nigam - Petitioner acted bona fide
by depositing amount of Rs. 14,25,000/-
and lease rent - Deprivation of use and
enjoyment
of
the
subject
land
-
Entitlement of adequate compensation -
High Court directed the Nagar Nigam for
payment of compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs
and refund of entire amount with 8% per
annum simple interest and release of 25%
bid amount as well. (Para 14 and 15)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned standing
counsel for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, Sri
Pankaj Srivastava for respondent No. 2 and
perused the record.

2. At the outset, Sri Vinayak Mithal,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that
he does not wish to rebut the additional
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
second respondent and prays that the
instant petition be heard and decided.