Delhi District Court
Ashish Yadav vs Gyan Sagar Public School on 6 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI, ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JSCC-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS SCJ : 1728/2018
CNR NO. DLSW030018622018
Ashish Yadav
s/o Sh. Rajesh Yadav
Through Natural Guardian (Father)
Sh. Rajesh Yadav
r/o RZP- 239, Gali no.4
Palam Colony, Raj Nagar Part-2,
Bagdola, South-West Delhi
Dwarka, Delhi - 110077.
........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Gyan Sagar Public School
P Block, Raj Nagar-II,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi- 110077.
2. Department of Education (NCT Of Delhi)
Through its Deputy Director,
South-West District, GBSS School, No.1
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043.
3. Central Board of Secondary Education
Siksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092 ..........Defendants
Date of institution : 11.10.2018
Arguments heard on : 25.02.2021
Date of decision : 06.04.2021
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Smt Preeti Yadav are the parents of the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.3 to issue CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 1/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors. a fresh certificate and mark sheet for Class X to the plaintiff by changing the names of his parents as Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Smt Preeti Yadav. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are:− 1 It is stated that the plaintiff is a minor student studying at defendant no. 1 school which is affiliated to defendant no. 3 Board. It is stated that the plaintiff completed his secondary school examination in the year 2018 with Roll no. 8242777 and Serial no. 1063802. It is stated that the name of the father of the plaintiff is Sh Rajesh Yadav and the name of his mother is Smt. Preeti Yadav. It is stated that the CBSE mark-sheet and passing certificate wrongly mention the names of his parents as "Rajesh Kumar" and "Preeti". It is stated that in the school records of the plaintiff and his other documents, the names of his parents have been correctly recorded. It is stated that the father of the plaintiff got an affidavit dated 31.08.2018 prepared declaring the correct names of the parents of the plaintiff and that he also got a publication done in Economic Times and Hindustan Times on 03.09.2018. It is stated that a publication was also made in the Gazette of India to this effect. It is stated that when the plaintiff approached the concerned authorities for the correction of the names of his parents, he was advised to approach the court. Hence, the present suit.
2 Defendant no. 1/school filed a written statement stating that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable since the school has no power to change the mark sheet or certificate issued by CBSE. It is submitted that the names of the plaintiff and his parents were recorded on the basis of documents produced by the guardians of the plaintiff at the time of the admission or the particulars filled by them. 3 Defendant no. 2/DOE filed a written statement stating that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 2 of the DESR Act and Section 80 of the CPC. It is submitted that the admission of the plaintiff was not done on the basis of the school leaving certificate. It is submitted that at the time of the admission of the plaintiff, his birth certificate was not submitted to the school and the name of the father of the plaintiff was registered as "Rajesh Yadav" and the name of the mother was registered as "Preeti Yadav" in the Admission and Withdrawal Register of the CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 2/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
school. It is submitted that later when the plaintiff provided the birth certificate issued by MCD, it was found that the name of his parents was recorded as "Rajesh Kumar" and "Preeti". It is submitted that accordingly, the changes were made in the school admission register. It is submitted that the list of candidates registered for the class IX examination also mentions the names of the parents of the plaintiff as "Rajesh Kumar" and "Preeti" and the same has been duly signed by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the list of candidates registered for the class X examination also mentions the names of the parents of the plaintiff as "Rajesh Kumar" and "Preeti" and the same has been duly signed by the parents of the plaintiff. 4 Defendant no. 3/CBSE filed a written statement stating that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the amended rule 69.1(i) of the Examination Bye- Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education, the amended Office Order dated 06.02.2015, the notification dated 26.06.2015 and circular bearing no. CBSE/Coord/AS(C) /112576 dated 10.11.2017, which provide that an application for changes in name or surname of candidates may be granted, provided the change has been admitted before the publication of results of the candidate. It is further submitted that no change in name/surname can be allowed once recorded in the Board's record, however, corrections in the name to the extent of corrections in spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the candidate's name/surname, father's name/mother's name or guardian's name may be allowed to make it consistent with what is given in the list of candidates submitted by the school. It is submitted that the rules clearly provide that in no case correction shall include alteration, addition, deletion to make it different except as mentioned in the list of candidates or the school record.
5 Vide order dated 25.02.2019 three issues were framed:
"(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for ? (OPP)
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)
(iii) Relief."CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 3/12
Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
6 In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined his father- Sh Rajesh Yadav as his witness. PW-1/Sh. Rajesh Yadav entered witness box on 22.05.2019 and tendered his affidavit Ex PW1/1 in evidence. This affidavit reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He placed reliance on a copy of ID card of the plaintiff as Ex PW1/A, on a copy of birth certificate of the plaintiff as Ex PW1/B, on a copy of OBC certificate of the plaintiff as Ex PW1/C, on a copy of Class X mark-sheet of the plaintiff as Ex PW1/D, on a copy of Aadhaar card of the plaintiff as Ex PW1/E, on a copy of application to the school as Ex PW1/F, on a copy of CBSE notification as Mark A, on a copy of his OBC certificate as Ex PW1/H, on a copy of electricity bill as Ex PW1/I, on a copy of the affidavit regarding correction of name as Ex PW1/J, on a copy of gazette notification as Ex PW1/K, on a copy of newspaper publication as Ex PW1/L, on a copy of Aadhaar card of the mother of the plaintiff as Ex PW1/M, on a copy of application for issuance of birth certificate of the plaintiff as Ex PW1/N and on a copy of his Aadhaar card as Ex PW1/O. In his cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on List of Candidates Ex PW1/D1. He denied that certificate Mark X was submitted by him belatedly. 7 The defendants did not lead any evidence.
8 I have heard the parties and have perused the record.
9 Issue wise findings are as under:-
"(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed for ? (OPP)"
9.1.1 At the outset it may be noted that the defendants has not denied that the parents of the plaintiff are Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Smt. Preeti Yadav. None of the defendants have denied the averments made regarding the parentage of the plaintiff in the plaint.
9.1.2 PW1 has relied on his Aadhar card Ex PW1/O which identifies him to be "Rajesh Yadav". PW1 has also relied on the identity card issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff as Ex PW1/A. This identity card mentions the name of the father of the plaintiff as "Rajesh Yadav". Further, PW1 has placed reliance on the birth certificate of the plaintiff Ex PW1/B which CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 4/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
mentions the names of his parents as "Rajesh Yadav" and "Preeti Yadav". PW1 has further placed reliance on the OBC certificate of the plaintiff Ex PW1/C and the Aadhaar Card of the plaintiff Ex PW1/E both of which mention the name of his father as "Rajesh Yadav". None of the defendants took any objection to these documents.
9.1.3 PW1 has clearly deposed that the mother of the plaintiff is Smt Preeti Yadav and that his father is Sh. Rajesh Yadav. This assertion of PW1 is not rebutted by the defendants and hence it is clear that the parties are at an admitted position that the mother of the plaintiff is Smt Preeti Yadav and her father is Sh. Rajesh Yadav .
In view of the aforesaid discussion issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is declared that Sh Rajesh Yadav is the father of the plaintiff/Ashish Yadav and that Smt Preeti Yadav is the mother of the plaintiff.
"(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)"
9.2.1 PW1 has relied on his affidavit Ex PW1/J which mentions that "Rajesh Yadav" and "Rajesh Kumar" are names of one person only. Similarly, it mentions that "Preeti Yadav" and "Preeti" are names of the same person. Further, PW1 has got issued a gazette notification Ex PW1/K to the same effect. No question has been put to the witness in respect of these documents by any defendant. Thus, these documents stand admitted by the defendants.
9.2.2 Interestingly, the admission form and the Admission & Withdrawal Register filed by defendant no.1 with its written statement show that the name of the father of the plaintiff was entered as "Rajesh Yadav" and the name of the mother of the plaintiff was entered as "Preeti Yadav", however the same were changed by the school Principal to "Rajesh Kumar" and "Preeti", respectively.
CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 5/12Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
The school/defendant no.1 has mentioned in its written statement that the names of the parents of the plaintiff have been mentioned as per the self- declaration and the documents produced by the guardians of the plaintiff at the time of admission. However, as noted above, the admission form mentions the correct names of the parents of the plaintiff. The school/defendant no.1 has cross-examined PW1 to the effect that the birth certificate of the plaintiff Mark X was not furnished at the time of his admission but was furnished subsequently due to which the corrections were made in the school records of the plaintiff. However, neither this stand was taken in the written statement by defendant no. 1 nor any evidence was led to this effect. Even if something like this had indeed happened, then too it was incumbent on defendant no.1 to intimate the plaintiff/his parents before unilaterally changing the school record. The root cause of the confusion regarding the names of the parents of the plaintiff stems from changes made by defendant no.1 without the knowledge and permission of the plaintiff/parents of the plaintiff.
9.2.3 Coming to the rules applicable to changes/correction in names of the parents of the candidate, Bye-law 69.1(i) and (ii) of Central Board of Secondary Education Bye-laws are relevant in this regard:
"69.1(i) Applications regarding changes in name or surname of candidates may be considered, provided the changes have been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate. 69.1(ii) Correction in name to the extent of correction in spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the Candidate's name/Surname, Father's name/Mother's name or Guardian's name to make it consistent with what is given in the school record or list of candidates (LOC) submitted by the school may be made. Application for correction in name of Candidate/Father's/Mother's/Guardian's name will be considered only within five years of the date of declaration of result provided the application of the candidate is forwarded by the Head of Institution with the following attested documents:......."
9.2.4 Now the moot question before this Court is whether the request of the plaintiff to alter the names of 'Sh Rajesh Kumar' and 'Smt Preeti' to 'Sh CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 6/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
Rajesh Yadav' and 'Smt Preeti Yadav' is a request for "changes in names" or "correction of names".
The definition of 'correction' mentioned in Rule 69.1(ii) is very restrictive. It applies only to cases where there are spelling mistakes or factual typographical errors and is further limited only to those cases where correction is sought to make it consistent with the school record. The case of the plaintiff is not covered under Rule 69.1(ii) since his school record was changed by defendant no.1 without his information.
However, the case of the plaintiff also does not fall within the meaning of 'change' because the plaintiff does not want to change the names of his parents but wants to rectify the record of the defendants to incorporate the correct names of his parents.
9.2.5 As observed earlier, there is no dispute that the parents of the plaintiff are Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Smt Preeti Yadav. It is nobody's case that Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Smt Preeti Yadav are different persons from Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Preeti. There is no question as to the identity of the plaintiff. Yet he is unable to have the errors in the names of his parents rectified because his case is covered by neither 69.1(i) nor 69.1(ii) of the CBSE Bye-Laws. 9.2.6 At this stage, reference may be had to judgment in the case of Imranalikhan v.Central Board of Secondary Education and Another cited at 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6980 wherein an LPA had been filed seeking correction of the mother's name of Ms. Filza Khan, appearing in the records of the CBSE as "Kiran Khan" to "Fakiha Khan. In the said case at the time of admission of Ms. Filza Khan in Class-I with the school, the name of her mother was recorded as Ms. Kiran Khan. This continued to remain so, over the years and these particulars came to be furnished by the school to the CBSE. Resultantly, in the grade sheet-cum-certificate of performance of All India Secondary School Examination-2015 of Ms. Filza Khan, her mother's name came to be mentioned "Kiran Khan". Consequently, the petitioner made an application to the school and the CBSE but the CBSE CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 7/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
communicated that as per the amended Rule 69.1(i) the request could not be allowed. In this factual matrix, while allowing the correction in the name, it was observed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"5. Having considered the diverse aspects and the admitted factual conspectus on record, we find, the case in hand, is not a case of any change of name, but, a mere correction in the mother's name of the child Ms. Filza Khan. Apparently, an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the mother's nickname "Ms. Kiran Khan" in the admission form in the year 2005, got transmitted by the respondent No. 2 school to the respondent No. 1 Board. The application made by the petitioner was not for any change of name, but, for correction of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the mother in the admission form as "Kiran Khan" instead of "Fakiha Khan", which fact, undisputedly, finds support from the birth certificate dated 17.12.02, copy whereof forms part of the record as Annexure-P1. This birth certificate clearly mentions that Ms. Filza Khan was born to the petitioner and Ms. Fakiha Khan. The applicant has placed on record other documents, such as the educational certificates of the mother Fakiha Khan, her passport etc., which show that her name always was Fakiha Khan. Thus, it is not a case of change of name of the mother to Kiran Khan, from Fakiha Khan, post the filling up of the examination form of the appellant's daughter. Pertinently, even in the documents relating to the daughter of the appellant Filza Khan, such as her Birth Certificate, the name of the mother is recorded as "Fakiha Khan" and not "Kiran Khan". Thus, the case in hand is certainly not a case of change of name as contemplated under Rule 69.1(i). It is also not a case of correction in spelling errors and factual typographical errors as contemplated under Rule 69.1(ii). The case in hand is completely founded on the premise of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the mother in the admission form, which was filled way back in the year 2005 at the time of admission of the child in class-I. Such a case is neither covered under Rule 69.1(i), nor Rule 69.1(ii)..."
6. We feel, the respondent No. 1 Board has been too recalcitrant in a case of the kind in hand inspite of the clear and specific observations made by the Co-ordinate bench of this in Mazhar Saleem's case... ...8. The adoption of a strict and restrictive approach in the matter of change or correction of name of the candidate or his/her parents, in the certificates issued by the respondent No. 1, cannot be justified on the foundation that such changes, when made later, may be exploited to mislead all concerned about the identity of the candidate. Such a strict and restrictive approach cannot be justified merely on the ground of some administrative inconvenience. After all, respondent No. 1 charges the fee to cover its costs for undertaking such an exercise."
(Emphasis supplied) Similarly, in the present case, none of the defendants has raised any concern over the identity of the plaintiff. The names of the parents of the CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 8/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
plaintiff have always been "Sh. Rajesh Yadav" and "Smt Preeti Yadav". The plaintiff merely wants a correction be done in his records to incorporate the actual names of his parents.
9.2.7 A similar issue had arisen before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case o f Hemant Nimesh vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Another cited at 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8800, wherein the petitioner wanted to alter the name of his father from "Surender Nimesh" to "Surender Kumar Nimesh". While allowing the petition, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"5. In all such cases, the attempt of the court, in the first instance, is to ascertain whether the request of the candidate is for "change" in name or "correction" in name. Thereafter, the court is required to adopt a common sense approach. Where the records indicate that the request of the candidate is genuine, technical considerations ought not to stand in the way of the Court granting relief as sought. ...7. The CBSE has framed clear cut guidelines governing applications for change, and correction of name, and advisedly so, at times, the name of the student, or her or his parents, becomes an identity marker, and any ambiguity therein may have serious consequences at a later stage. In cases where there, therefore, appears to be any degree of ambiguity, even slight, regarding the claim, for change of the name, made by the candidate herself/himself, or her/his parent, courts are required to adopt a circumspect approach and cannot be unruly lenient 8 . Having said that, however, where the records reveals that the prayer for change of name is genuine, the court cannot be hypertechnical in broaching the issue. This is probably best reflected in a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Imran Ali Khan v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6980."
(Emphasis supplied) 9.2.8 Similarly, in the case of Rashmeet Kaur Kohli (minor) v Central Board of Secondary Education cited at 2006 SCC Online Del 1193, Hon'ble Delhi High Court permitted the name of the petitioner to be changed from "Rashmeet Kohli" to "Rashmeet Kaur Kohli" in the CBSE records. 9.2.9 Further, in the case of Arya Kariyatil Chendakera vs Central Board Of Secondary Education and anr cited at 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8402 wherein the appellant had approached the Court for correction of her name and the names of her parents to "Ms. Arya Kariyatil Chendakera", "Sh. Kariyatil CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 9/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
Chendakera Deleep Kumar" and "Smt. Kavitha Deleep" from "Arya K C", "K C Dilip" and "Kavitha Dilip", as was mentioned in the school records. While holding that the same amounted to only 'corrections' and not 'changes', Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"7. A careful look into the names appearing in the subject document and the amendments proposed only leads to the conclusion that appellant, in effect, seeks to furnish the full name, surname, and the middle name of the respective persons. In other words, the abbreviations used for the name, middle name or the surnames are only sought to be done away with. Such corrections in the school records and 'the subject document' in our considered view by no means can be construed to be a change of name. Though, the surname is sought to be corrected/amended as 'Deleep' instead of 'Dilip', it also has the effect of correction only rather than a change. It is thus seen that the application made by the appellant was actually for the correction in names rather than for any change....... The instant case, in our considered view, falls within the category of Bye-law 69.1(ii), which deals with the correction in the names. It is also not the case nor was it pointed out during the hearing that the identity of either the appellant or her parents or their relationship is in dispute. What is asserted to by the appellant, in fact, also finds support from the gazette notification for correction in names issued on 26.05.2017 as also the respective passports and the Aadhar Card, which are duly supported by an affidavit...."
9.2.10 None of the defendants have raised any apprehension that the plaintiff has moved the application for rectification of names for any malafide motive. The difficulty of the plaintiff is genuine. There has been a mistake in the recording of the names of his parents for which defendant no.1 is primarily to be blamed. Any mistake, howsoever gross, cannot disentitle him to the right to pursue higher education and the right to pursue a career. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a young man's future could be jeopardized merely due to a mistake by his school. 9.2.11 Reliance is also placed in the case of Khushbu Kaushik (Minor) thr. Her Father Lt. Col. Rajesh Chandra Kaushik vs Central Board of Secondary Education Through its Chairman & ors. cited at 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8492 wherein the petitioner had wanted that her school records should reflect her father's name as "Rajesh Chandra Kaushik" instead of "Rajesh Kaushik".
CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 10/12Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
While allowing the correction, Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"19. So long as the identity of the Petitioner is clear and there is no doubt as to the name and identity of her parents, merely abbreviated recordal or mistake in recordal of the names, cannot be perpetuated, resulting in inconvenience and hardship to the Petitioner. The CBSE does not dispute the identity of the father or of the Petitioner. The CBSE merely submits that it did not commit any mistake and relied upon the LOC (list of candidates) and the form submitted by the school...".
9.2.12 There is no doubt as to the name and identity of the plaintiff. The CBSE/defendant no.1 has not disputed the identity of the parents of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no reason why this Court should approach a hyper-technical approach that defeats the very purpose for which CBSE has been established. In its own words (https://cbse.nic.in/newsite/ aboutCbse.html), the main objectives of CBSE are "To define appropriate approaches of academic activities to provide stress free, child centered and holistic education to all children without compromising on quality", "To adapt and innovate methods to achieve academic excellence in conformity with psychological, pedagogical and social principles" and "To propose plans to achieve quality benchmarks in school education consistent with the National goals"
9.2.13 Accordingly, issue no. 2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Defendant no. 3 is directed to issue a corrected Secondary School Examination Grade cum Performance Certificate to the plaintiff reflecting the name of his father as 'Rajesh Yadav' and the name of his mother as 'Preeti Yadav'. The same be done within six weeks. Defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 are also directed to rectify their relevant records, if any to the same effect.
"(iii) Relief"
9.3 In view of the above noted findings, the suit of the plaintiff is CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 11/12 Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
decreed. Costs of the suit awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room. RICHA Digitally
by RICHA
signed
GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2021.04.06
SOLANKI 16:01:58 +05'30'
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
on 06th April 2021 JSCC/ASCJ/GJ:S-W:
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS No. 1728/18 Page no. 12/12
Ashish Yadav v Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.