Substitution of name in educational certificates due to post-marriage change is not a matter of right.

The petitioner passed her High School Examination (2017) and Higher Secondary Examination (2022) conducted by the Chhattisgarh State Open School.

Her name was recorded as "Sahodra Chandra" in the marksheet/certificates issued by the board.

The petitioner married in 2005 and claims she has since used the name "Sarita Chandra" in other official documents like Aadhar and PAN cards.

She executed a notarized affidavit and submitted a representation on 21.04.2026 to the respondents seeking a name change in her educational certificates to avoid difficulties in employment and banking.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Board to substitute her recorded name in educational certificates based on a post-marriage change of name.

2. Whether the lack of statutory provisions or evidence of clerical error precludes the court from granting the relief of name substitution.

The court applied the principle of administrative law regarding the issuance of a writ of mandamus, which requires the existence of a legal or fundamental right and a corresponding mandatory statutory duty.

It further relied on the doctrine of finality in educational records, emphasizing that certificates reflect the particulars of a candidate as recorded at the time of admission and examination in accordance with the Board's specific rules and regulations.

The Court observed that this was not a case of clerical, typographical, or inadvertent error by the Board, but rather a request for the voluntary substitution of a name adopted after marriage.

The Court noted that despite the petitioner marrying in 2005, she appeared for examinations in 2017 and 2022 as "Sahodra Chandra," failing to seek corrections during the admission or verification stages.

The Court reasoned that educational certificates are intended to be historical records of the Board's data at the time of the exam.

Crucially, the petitioner failed to cite any statutory provision, rule, or regulation that mandates the Board to alter or substitute a name after the results have attained finality.

In the absence of a legal right or a statutory obligation on the part of the respondents, the court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

It held that a petitioner cannot seek substitution of a name in educational records several years after the certificates were issued, especially when the name was correctly recorded based on the information provided at the time of examination and no statutory enabling provision for such a change exists.

No order as to costs was made.