IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3694 of 2011 Date of decision : 1.3.2011 Deepak Dogra ....Petitioner Versus Central Board of School Education and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Amit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays that the impugned order Annexure P- 7 be set aside. He had applied for correction of his father's name which appears in the records. The prayer has been declined by virtue of order Annexure P-7 and while doing so it has been observed that the school record does not support the desired correction and that there is a cutting/overwriting in the school record and further there is a variation among different school documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this has prejudiced the interest of the petitioner, who is a student. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is misconceived. The competent authority after evaluating the material, which was produced by the petitioner in support of the correction, which he so desired, has C.W.P.No.3694 of 2011 -2- declined the request for the reasons which have indicated in the impugned order. Whether the same has been done correctly or incorrectly can hardly be the subject matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the petitioner that the competent authority has not decided the issue which could have prompted this Court to interfere. But after applying its mind if the competent authority on the basis of record which speaks of facts has determined an issue, then this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the competent authority to do otherwise. The petition thus is totally devoid of any merit. However, the petitioner, who is a student, may take recourse to any other remedy available to him under the law, including the filing of a civil suit. If he is able to show any other inspiring material, which fortifies his case, liberty is also granted to him to approach the competent authority afresh with such supportive material, and in such an eventuality the competent authority shall evaluate such material and decide the matter afresh. The petition is dismissed. 1.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss