IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17653 of 2009 1. SUMAN KUMAR @ SAMEER SUMAN SINHA S/O SRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA R/O MOHALLA- LALLU POKHAR, NEAR- DURGA ASTHAN, P.S.- KASIM BAZAR, P.O. AND DISTT.- MUNGER, (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (C.B.S.E.) DELHI, THROUGH THE SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, DELHI 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (C.B.S.E.), DELHI 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE OF C.B.S.E. TODAR MAL MARG AZAMER, RAJASTHAN null null 5. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD, SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE OF C.B.S.E. AT TODARMAL MARG AZAMER, RAJASTHAN 6. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DELHI, THROUGH THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE, C.B.S.E. AT ALLAHABAD (U.P.) 7. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DELHI THROUGH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY REGIONAL OFFICE, C.B.S.E., ALLAHABAD (U.P.) 8. THE PRINCIPAL VIDYA NIKETAN BIRLA PUBLIC SCHOOL PILANI (RAJASTHAN) 9. THE PRINCIPAL SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR SADIPUR MUNGER, BIHAR ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Indu Bhushan For respondent no.1 : Dr. Mayanand Jha, For respondent nos.2 to 7 : Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy ---- Advocate CBSE 2. 21.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Central Board of Secondary Education and the learned counsel for the Union of India. Petitioner wanted the Board to change his name in the certificate already issued by it in the year 2006. For that he made a request on 27.10.2008 which was rejected on 6th November, 2008 vide Annexure-8. The Board informed that as per its bye-laws, there is no provision for change of name once registered in its record. In the aforesaid circumstances, the 2 petitioner has sought to challenge the amendment in examination bye-laws made by the Board in June 2007 which has been circulated to all the regional officers of the Board through letter dated 20th September, 2007 contained in Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the bye-laws contained a provision for entertaining the applications for change in names/surnames where such changes have been permitted by the court of law and notified in a Government Gazette. According to the learned counsel, the Board has deleted the aforesaid earlier provision to the detriment of the persons like the petitioner and such change in bye-paws is bad in law because it will cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the other parties, we find that the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is actually a challenge to the wisdom of the authorities to make the amendment. The bye-laws have been amended by the competent authorities and it is not for this Court to substitute its wisdom 3 for that of the competent authority. We find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. ahk (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Jyoti Saran,J.)