SHOK KUMAR GAUR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, i.e., Ajay Kumar and Harsh Chaudhary, who are father and son respectively. The petitioners are aggrieved from the order dated 10 th May, 2019, whereby the respondents rejected prayer of the petitioner No.2 - Harsh Chaudhary to make correction in the name of his father in the mark sheet of Class - X.
(2.) The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner No.2 - Harsh Chaudhary passed his Class - X examination in the year 2018 from the Central Board of Secondary Education (in short "CBSE") - the respondent No.2. The petitioner No.2 - Harsh Chaudhary, while filling the examination form for appearing in Class - X, erroneously mentioned name of his father as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and accordingly, he was issued mark sheet of Class - X by showing his father's name as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary. The petitioners have pleaded that name of the petitioner No.1 in his Adhar Card and in the birth certificate of the petitioner No.2 is indicated as Ajay Kumar.
(3.) The petitioners have pleaded that immediately after declaration of result of Class - X, the application was given to the school authorities, i.e., the respondent No.4 for correction in the name of father of petitioner No.2 as Ajay Kumar. The application, so sent by the school authorities, has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10th May, 2019 by making a reference of Clause 69.1(i) and (ii) of Central Board of Secondary Education By- laws relating to change of name/correction, etc. The petitioners have pleaded that necessary exercise of getting change of name in the gazette notification was also undertaken and such gazette notification was published on 12 th July, 2018, wherein the petitioner No.1 - Ajay Kumar specifically has given the declaration that the mark sheet of his son of secondary class his name was wrongly mentioned as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and actual and correct name was Ajay Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that correction of the name of the petitioner No.2 has wrongly been declined by the respondents and the petitioners have carried out necessary formalities for correction of the name. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner No.2 to give wrong information with respect to his father's name and it was an error, which was committed by the petitioner No.2, who was student of Class - X while filling the examination form. Learned counsel further submitted that all the documents, with regard to name of the petitioner No.1, show his name as Ajay Kumar and as such, there is no undue advantage or to mislead the authorities, father's name was given as Ajay Kumar Chaudhary while filling the form. ;