While making any correction in the entries relating to these matters, the requirement of moving the application within three years has to be adhered to as any correction in regard to these entries would have an impact on the rights of other candidates when they seek admission to higher classes or employment. However, the other particulars contained in the certificate, like the name of the candidate of the names of the parents of the candidate are not that relevant and any correction made in regard to these particulars would have no impact on the admission or employment of other candidates. When so considered, we feel persuaded to hold that the time limit of three years prescribed in the substantive part of Regulation 7 for submission of an application for making correction in the certificate issued by the Board in regard to the name of the candidates or the names of the parents of the candidate should not have been insisted upon, Particularly when the board itself considered it appropriate or the names of the parents of the candidate to have no time limit under the proviso for making correction in regard to any spelling mistake in the name of the candidate of his parents. The applicant must, however, explain to the Board the reasons on the basis of which the application could not be submitted earlier and if it is found that the claim is bona fide and is otherwise justified, there is no reason to reject the application, as in the present case, merely on the ground of delay. Undoubtedly, the Board has to examine whether any genuine ground has been made out for correcting the name and it would be open to the Board to consider all the relevant materials pertaining to the request for correction of the name. *Abhishek* In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the first respondent, rejecting the application submitted by the appellant for correction for the name of his mother in the High School and intermediate examinations only on the ground of delay, is unsustainable. We, accordingly, direct the first respondent to re-consider the application having due regard to all the documentary evidence which may be produced by the appellant. The first respondent would also be at liberty to summon all the relevant records from the concerned institution for the purpose of deciding the application of the appellant. We clarify that the interpretation which we have placed in the aforesaid terms governs only the mistakes in the certificate in the name of the candidate of in the names of his parents. The first respondent shall now pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In order to facilitate this exercise, the impugned order dated 11 October 2013 is set aside. The order of the learned Single Judge shall, in consequence, be set aside and be substituted by the aforesaid directions. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. Submit