1 CGHC010328312026 2026:CGHC:39121 RAVVA NAFR UTTEJ DigitallybyKUMARRAVVARAJUsignedUTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date:17:56:412026.09.08+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4483 of 2026 1 - Ritik Jaiswal S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o M.Q. 918, Pragati Nagar Deepka, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate of Public Instructions Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 4 - C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur Through Its Secretary, Pension Bada, Vivekanand Nagar, Janta Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 2 07/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 15.05.2026 bearing No. 2152/Record/Bilaspur/2026, passed by respondent No. 4.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to Change the name of mother of the petitioner from Suman Jaiswal to Uma Jaiswal in Class 10th and 12th marksheet of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other consequential relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper and for which the petitioner is entitled, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking correction of his mother’s name in the mark-sheet pertaining to the year 2012. He further submits that the name of the petitioner’s mother has already been duly changed in the Gazette notification and that the corrected name is also reflected in the records relating to Classes VI and VII. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submits that no prejudice would be caused by the mother’s name being recorded as the name presently reflected in the mark-sheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s mother changed her name only after the petitioner had passed Classes X and XII, and therefore, such subsequent change of name cannot be given retrospective effect for correction in the mark-sheet. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 3

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner had passed the Class X examination in the year 2012 and the Class XII examination in the year 2014, and the mark-sheets in question were accordingly issued at the relevant point of time. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother was then known by the name “Suman Jaiswal”. Subsequently, on 13.02.2026, the petitioner’s mother changed her name from “Suman Jaiswal” to “Uma Jaiswal”, which is admittedly much after the petitioner had completed his Class X and Class XII examinations. Thus, the change in the name of the petitioner’s mother is a subsequent event and cannot retrospectively alter the particulars recorded in the educational records on the basis of the information not existing at the time when the said examinations were conducted and the mark-sheets were issued. Merely because the changed name has subsequently been published in the Gazette and is reflected in certain other documents, the same would not, by itself, confer a right upon the petitioner to seek retrospective correction of the mother’s name in the mark-sheets issued in the years 2012 and 2014. The educational records are required to reflect the particulars applicable at the relevant point of time and cannot ordinarily be altered on the basis of a subsequent change in the name of the parent. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju

1 CGHC010328312026 2026:CGHC:39121 RAVVA NAFR UTTEJ DigitallybyKUMARRAVVARAJUsignedUTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date:17:56:412026.09.08+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4483 of 2026 1 - Ritik Jaiswal S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o M.Q. 918, Pragati Nagar Deepka, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate of Public Instructions Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 4 - C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur Through Its Secretary, Pension Bada, Vivekanand Nagar, Janta Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 2 07/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 15.05.2026 bearing No. 2152/Record/Bilaspur/2026, passed by respondent No. 4.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to Change the name of mother of the petitioner from Suman Jaiswal to Uma Jaiswal in Class 10th and 12th marksheet of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other consequential relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper and for which the petitioner is entitled, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking correction of his mother’s name in the mark-sheet pertaining to the year 2012. He further submits that the name of the petitioner’s mother has already been duly changed in the Gazette notification and that the corrected name is also reflected in the records relating to Classes VI and VII. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submits that no prejudice would be caused by the mother’s name being recorded as the name presently reflected in the mark-sheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s mother changed her name only after the petitioner had passed Classes X and XII, and therefore, such subsequent change of name cannot be given retrospective effect for correction in the mark-sheet. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 3

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner had passed the Class X examination in the year 2012 and the Class XII examination in the year 2014, and the mark-sheets in question were accordingly issued at the relevant point of time. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother was then known by the name “Suman Jaiswal”. Subsequently, on 13.02.2026, the petitioner’s mother changed her name from “Suman Jaiswal” to “Uma Jaiswal”, which is admittedly much after the petitioner had completed his Class X and Class XII examinations. Thus, the change in the name of the petitioner’s mother is a subsequent event and cannot retrospectively alter the particulars recorded in the educational records on the basis of the information not existing at the time when the said examinations were conducted and the mark-sheets were issued. Merely because the changed name has subsequently been published in the Gazette and is reflected in certain other documents, the same would not, by itself, confer a right upon the petitioner to seek retrospective correction of the mother’s name in the mark-sheets issued in the years 2012 and 2014. The educational records are required to reflect the particulars applicable at the relevant point of time and cannot ordinarily be altered on the basis of a subsequent change in the name of the parent. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju