WP 4484/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4484/2011 Shantling Guruling Swami V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mrs.A.S. Rasal, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 23.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent nos.2 & 3 to change his name appearing on SSC certificate and mark-sheet as Shantiling Guruling Swami instead of Shantiling Gurulingayya. WP 4484/11 2 Mrs.A.S. Rasal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, vehemently opposes the petition. She submits that as per the Regulations, such an application cannot be entertained after a period of three years. She submits that the Regulations have been framed in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam V/s Md.Sarifuz Zaman reported at 2003 (12) SCC, 408. The perusal of the record would reveal that though the petitioner had appeared for H.S.C. Examination in March, 2005, he had earlier appeared for SSC examination from Karnataka Board. After realising the mistake, the petitioner had applied to Karnataka Board for correction of his name, which correction was allowed on 12.1.2011. Immediately thereafter the petitioner had made an application to change his name to the respondent nos.2 & 3. We find that by change of name, the petitioner would not get WP 4484/11 3 any advantage. Insofar as the judgment of the Apex Court is concerned, the same was considering the entry regarding the date of birth. The change of entry to record date of birth cannot be equated with the change in the name. The change in the date of birth would entail certain advantages, which is not so in the case of change of name. In that view of the matter, we find that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 on the judgment of the Apex Court is mis-placed. We, therefore, direct the respondent nos.2 & 3 to make necessary correction in the entry regarding the name of the petitioner, as applied by the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 23.08.2011 ndk/c2381126