Delhi District Court
Arpita @ Premwati vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRIYA AGRAWAL
JSCC, ASCJ, GJ, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 1639/19
CNR No. : DLSE03-002372-2019
Arpita @ Premwati
D/o Sh. Bijender Pal
R/o 272, Jatav Mohalla
Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi-110019. .... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Central Board of Secondary Education
P-2, 1-2 Institutional Area
Patparganj, I.P. Extension
Delhi-110092.
2. Sarvodaya Girls Sr. Secondary School
Madarpur Khadar, New Delhi. ... Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of Institution of the case : 28.09.2019
Date of reserving judgment : 26.07.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.07.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff 'Arpita @ Premvati' against Defendant No.1 (Central Board of Secondary Education, hereinafter referred to as 'CBSE') and Defendant No.2 (Sarvodaya Girls Senior Secondary School) for the relief of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants recognizing change of her name to 'Arpita' CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.1 of 14 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:05:55 +05'30' from 'Premvati' and for directions in the nature of Mandatory Injunction to the Defendants to bring necessary corresponding amends in the name of the Plaintiff in the School Marksheets / Certificates of Class X and Class XII.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER THE PLAINT
2. Briefly, the Plaintiff has averred that in the plaint that she was born on 09.01.1999 and her parents had named her 'Premvati'. She has passed her Secondary School Examination (Xth standard) from Defendant No.2 School vide Roll No.8773115 in the academic session 2012-2014. Thereafter, she passed Senior Secondary School Examination (XIIth standard) from Defendant No.2 School vide Roll No.973066 in the academic session 2015-2016. The said Marksheet and Certificates issued by Defendant No.1 reflect the name of Plaintiff as 'Premvati'. The Plaintiff has averred that thereafter she has changed her name to 'Arpita' in place of 'Premvati'. A public notice to this effect was duly published in Newspaper 'Hindustan Times' dated 30.07.2018. Notice was also published in Gazette of India dated 18.08-24.08.2018.
3. Thereafter, the Plaintiff took admission in a Course of Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, Delhi University, when she changed her name to 'Arpita' in place 'Premvati'. The Plaintiff claims that she had approached Defendant No.1 and 2 repeatedly seeking change of her name in the school records, particularly in the Marksheets / Certificates of Class X and Class XII. The Plaintiff claims she however has been asked by the Defendants to approach the Court for recognition of the proposed changes in the records first. The Plaintiff claims to have made formal representation to Defendant No.1 on 14.08.2019 and also to Defendant No.2 on 20.08.2019 requesting for CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.2 of 14 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:07:06 +05'30' change of her name from 'Premvati' to 'Arpita' and for issuance of fresh Certificate of Class X and Class XII. The same however have not been issued to the Plaintiff till date. Having regard to the fact that these Marksheets/ Certificates are essential for her future education, professional prospects and career, the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for the above-mentioned reliefs.
4. Summons of the suit were directed to be issued vide Order dated 28.9.2019, which stood duly served upon the Defendants. Defendant No.2 failed to appear despite service and proceedings against Defendant No.2 School were eventually set ex-parte vide Order dated 25.01.2020. For the sake of clarity, only Defendant no.1 has contested the present suit. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1 AS PER ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT
5. Defendant No.1 by its Written Statement has stated that the Board is governed by its rules and regulations, last amended in the year 2018. Rule 69.1 (i) requires that an applicant seeking change in his/her name has to make an application for the same which would be allowed only if the changes are admitted by the Court of law and also stand notified in the Government Gazette prior to the publication of the results of the candidates. It is also highlighted that Rule no. 69.1 (ii) stipulates that changes for bringing about correction in the name of candidate to remove spelling errors, factual or typographical errors may be effected, in order to make the details consistent with the school records. However, as a condition precedent, such an application for the afore-said request can be considered only if made within five years of declaration of the results, inter-alia, after securing compliance of other formalities.
Digitally signed bySHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:07:33 +05'30' CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.3 of 14
6. In view of the Rules as discussed above, it is averred that the suit is not maintainable since the Bye-laws/ Rules of Defendant No.1 have not been complied with and the prayer under the present suit is essentially time-barred.
ISSUES FRAMED
7. Vide Order dated 17.12.2021, the following issues have been framed:
'(1) Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Rules/ Byelaws of CBSE ? OPD (3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration to declare her correct name as 'Arpita' instead of Premvati i? OPP (4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to correct the name of the Plaintiff as 'Arpita' in place of 'Premvati in the Certificate of 10 th and 12th Standard issued by Defendant no.1? OPP (5) Relief.' PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
8. The matter thereafter was listed for Plaintiff Evidence. The Plaintiff herself deposed as the sole witness (PW1) on the strength of her affidavit Ex PW1/A and placed reliance upon the documents viz. Marksheets of X and XII Classes (Ex PW1/1 (OSR) and Ex PW1/2 (OSR)), Certificate of XII Class (Ex PW1/3 (OSR)), Newspaper Publication (Ex PW1/4), Gazette Notification (Ex PW1/5 OSR) and application dated 14.8.2019 with copy (Ex PW1/6 and Mark PW1/A respectively).
CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.4 of 14 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:07:59 +05'30'
9. In the cross examination of PW1, she stated that she had passed her 10th class examination in the year 2014 and 12 th class examination in the year 2016. She stated that her name is written in the records of 10 th Standard as Premvati and it is likewise, so mentioned in the records of 12 th Standard. Even at the time of her admission in the school, the witness/ Plaintiff stated that her name was mentioned as 'Premvati' in the records and the same has continued to be so right up till her 12 th Standard. She further stated she changed her name from Premvati to Arpita in the year 2018 and in this respect a Gazette Notification dated 24.8.2018 was issued. She further deposed that the School Authority forwarded her name as Premvati and mentioned so in the board certificates of classes 10 th and 12th. She acknowledged that there was no mistake on the part of the CBSE in issuing the board certificates of 10th and 12th classes mentioning her name as 'Premvati'.
10. The Plaintiff Evidence stood closed on 19.5.2022 after the Plaintiff opted to formally drop all remaining witnesses who were proposed to be examined in the matter. The Defendant no.1 in the same hearing clarified that the Defendant did not desire to lead evidence. Final arguments were heard threadbare. Record has been carefully perused.
APPRAISAL
11. The Plaintiff to support her prayer in the suit has placed reliance on her Marksheet of the Secondary School Examination issued by Defendant no.1 (Ex PW1/1 OSR) of the Session 2012- 2014, with she having cleared the same in 2014, along with Marksheet and School Certificate of the Senior School Secondary Examination (Ex PW1/2 OSR) and (Ex PW1/3 OSR) respectively. The Plaintiff has also pressed for the reliefs in the suit CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.5 of 14 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:08:20 +05'30' asserting that she had applied for change in her name in the school records by way of a formal request application bearing receiving dated 14.10.2019 (Ex PW1/6 OSR) addressed to the Secretary CBSE and also a Gazette Notification was published in due compliance of the rules of CBSE. The Defendant no. 1 on the other hand has relied upon the Rules of 2018 of CBSE which stipulate the procedure for effecting any change in the name of the candidates in the records or for making corrections. The Defendant has, inter-alia, objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the request has been made unduly belatedly post the declaration of the results and that too beyond the permissible period of five years under the Rules of 2018.
12. For clarity, at the outset, it is pertinent to peruse and take note of the CBSE Rules of 2018 governing the procedure for such requests/ applications if made. The relevant rules are reproduced for ready reference as under:-
C. Rules regarding change in limitation period of cases pertaining to correction in name (C/N, M/N, F/N/ Date of Birth from one year to five year:
Existing Rule Amended Rule 69.1 (i) 69.1 (i)
(Change in Candidate Name, Mother (Change in Candidate Name, Mother Name & Father Name) Name & Father Name) Applications regarding changes in Applications regarding changes in name of surname of candidates may be name of surname of candidates will be considered provided the changes have considered provided the changes have been admitted by the Court of law and been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the resulf of before the publication of the resulf of the candidate. the candidate.
In cases of change in documents after the court order caption will be CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.6 of 14 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:08:50 +05'30' mentioned on the document "CHANGE ALLOWED IN NAME/ FATHER'S NAME/MOTHER'S NAME/GUARDIAN'S NAME FROM ____ TO _______ ON (DATED) AS PER COURT ORDER NO_____ DATED_______".
69.1 (ii) 69.1 (ii) (Correction in Candidate Name, (Correction in Candidate Name, Mother Name & Father Name) Mother Name & Father Name) Correction in name to the extent of Correction in name to the extent of correction in spelling, errors, factual correction in spelling, errors, factual typographical errors in the Candidate's typographical errors in the Candidate's name/ Surname, Father's name/ name/ Surname, Father's name/ Mother's name or Guardian's name to Mother's name or Guardian's name to make it consistent with what is given make it consistent with what is given in the school record or list of candidate in the school record or list of candidate (LOC) submitted by the school may be (LOC) submitted by the school may be made. made.
Applications for correction in name of Applications for correction in name of Candidate/ Father's/Mother's / Candidate/ Father's/Mother's / Guardian's name will be considered Guardian's name will be considered only within one years of the date of only within Five years of the date of declaration of result provided the declaration of result provided the application of the candidate is application of the candidate is forwarded by the Head of Institution forwarded by the Head of Institution with the following attested documents: with the following attested documents:
a. True Copy of Admission form (s) a. True Copy of Admission form (s) filed in by the parents at the time of filed in by the parents at the time of admission duly attested by the Head of admission duly attested by the Head of concerned institution. concerned institution.
b. True Copy of the School Leaving b. True Copy of the School Leaving Certificates of the previous school Certificates of the previous school submitted by the parents of the submitted by the parents of the candidate at the time of admission duly candidate at the time of admission duly attested by the Head of the concerned attested by the Head of the concerned CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.7 of 14 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:09:13 +05'30' institution. institution.
c. True Copy of the portion of the page c. True Copy of the portion of the page of admisson and withdrawal register of of admisson and withdrawal register of the school where the entry has been the school where the entry has been made in respect of the candidate, duly made in respect of the candidate, duly attested by the Head of the concerned attested by the Head of the concerned institution. institution.
d. The Board may effect necessary corrections after verification of the original records of the school and on payment of the prescribed fee This rule will be applicable to all cases after Class X/XII 2015 examination onwards.
The Board may effect necessary Already covered in 69.1 (ii) corrections after verification of the original records of the school and on payment of the prescribed fee.
69.2 (i) 69.2 (i) No change in the date of birth once Change in Date of Birth recorded in the Board's records shall No change in the date of birth once be made. However, corrections to recorded in the Board's records shall correct typographical and other errors be made.
to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board.
13. The amended procedure as per the latest Rules of 2018 of CBSE require that in case of requests for 'change in the name of the candidates', the proposed amends can be considered only if they have been admitted by CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.8 of 14 SHRIYA Digitally signed by SHRIYA AGRAWA AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 L 20:09:43 +05'30' the Court of Law and notified in the Government Gazette 'before the publication of the result of the candidate'. As regards the procedure for bringing about corrections in the name of the Candidate to bring it in sync with the school records, as opposed to a complete change, the Rules require such requests to be made necessarily within a period of five years. The Plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the Senior Secondary School Marksheet and Certificate were issued to her on 21.5.2016 and the representation/ request for change was made by her through her letter in 2019. Having regard to the nature of change desired, the Plaintiff's case clearly falls in the first category, wherein she has adopted an all-together new name for herself, which she now desires to have introduced in her school records for clarity and certainty for all times to come, inter-alia for her further higher studies. The Defendant no.1 has opposed the request asserting that the same is not tenable, since it is in the teeth of the requirements of the Rules of 2018 discussed above essentially on two counts viz, as being time barred and having been made post the declaration of results, which is not permissible.
14. While interpretating the Rules of CBSE on issues of Constitutional validity in a challenge to their vires, quite recently, the Hon'ble SC in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE[ (2021) 7 SCC 535] has observed in Para no. 3 of the judgment as under :
"3. The CBSE Examination Bye-laws restrict, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the corrections/changes that can be carried out in the certificates issued by the Board. Various students with need-based requests approached different High Courts resulting into inconsistent outcomes leading up to this batch of appeals. Apart from the fact that the judgments have produced conflicting outcomes, the petitions raise some peculiar questions on the Constitutional validity of CBSE Examination CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.9 of 14 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:10:03 +05'30' Bye-laws (as amended from time to time) and interpretation thereof. Vires of Rule 69.1 of the CBSE Rules (post 2007 amendment) stood challenged, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it covers only a scenario where amends are permissible only to bring the certificates in conformity with the school record."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. It has been further observed in Para no. 142 in Jigya Yadav (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of the Bye-law regulating the procedure for change in name of candidates and so is quoted hereunder that:
" 142. The bye-law concerned has been framed on the assumption that there can be no situation wherein a legitimate need for change of name could arise for a student after publication of results. It is presumed that only typographical/factual errors could come in the certificates and they can be corrected using the provision for corrections. The presumption, we must note, is erroneous, absurd and distances itself from the social realities. There can be numerous circumstances wherein change of name could be a legitimate requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of preserving the standard of education in mind, the Board must provide for a reasonable opportunity to effect such changes."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. In the context of applications for change in name, the Hon'ble SC has further held in Jigya Yadav in Para no. 194 of the judgment that the same may be made either on the basis of public documents like birth certificate, Aadhaar card, election card, etc., to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate for consistency in records or the need for change is felt due to a name acquired by choice at a later point of time.' The Plaintiff's SHRIYA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SHRIYA AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:12:32 +05'30' CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.10 of 14 case falls in the second category and as per the judgment, the change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.
17. Further, bearing relevance to the issue at hand the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court become pertinent and are so reproduced as under :
"194.2. However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant."
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. With these observations, the Hon'ble SC virtually reading down the requirements under the bye-laws, especially with respect to the requirement of making application for change in name before the publication of the result of the candidate, has held that such applications may be entertained if moved within a reasonable time. Further, the only twin-fold requirement as has been observed in the dictum discussed above for such a prayer is that Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:12:55 +05'30' CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.11 of 14 the change has to be admitted by the Court of Law and the request is to be preceded by a Gazette Notification.
19. Moreover, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Defendant that the result of the Plaintiff/ Applicant of the Secondary School Examination had been declared in 2014, rendering the representation time barred as beyond the prescribed period of five years is completely devoid of merits. Rule 69.1 (i) of the Amended Rules of 2018 do not impose such an embargo with respect to limitation. A bare reading of the Rules reveals that, the said ceiling is imposed by virtue of Rule 69. 1(ii), only if the request is for correction in details and not where the applicant seeks to change his or her own name. Even otherwise, the law laid down in Jigya Yadav (supra) now holds the field and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has directed revision/ amendment of bye-laws in consonance with and compliance of the mechanism laid down in the said ruling. The New Rules are yet to be notified as conceded by the Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.1 in his submissions during final arguments.
20. In the ruling in Rashmeet Kaur Kohli (minor) v. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). [2006 SCC OnLine Del 1193] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cautioning against exercise of discretion under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act while granting relief of declaration concerning change of name in case of requests of the kind as at hand, had observed that such a prayer may be declined where the person has been making similar requests 'very frequently' or where the change is desired in order 'to circumvent the rules and bye-laws of the respondent'. The Defendant no.1 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:13:25 +05'30' CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.12 of 14 has failed to establish if the Plaintiff's case ought to stand defeated on any of these two counts.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
21. Accordingly for the above discussed reasons, the following are the issue-wise findings in the lis :
(1) Whether the suit of Plaintiff is barred by limitation?
This issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants as the Defendants have failed to discharge the burden to prove that the suit is time-barred.
(2) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Rules (sic) and Byelaws of CBSE ?
This issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for reasons detailed hereinabove. (3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration to declare her correct name as 'Arpita' instead of Premvati as prayed ? This issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for reasons discussed above.
(4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to correct the name of the Plaintiff as 'Arpita' instead of 'Premvati' in the Certificate of 10th and 12th Standard issued by Defendant no.1?
This issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for reasons discussed above.
Digitally signed bySHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:13:47 +05'30' CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.13 of 14 RELIEF
22. For the above detailed reasons, in the given facts and circumstances, the present suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants as under:
a. The Plaintiff is declared to have changed her name from 'Premwati' to 'Arpita' with effect from 30.07.2018; b. As sequitur to the above, Mandatory Injunction is issued to the Defendants with directions to immediately effect the change of the name of the Plaintiff as above in the School Marksheets and the Certificates in respect of the Plaintiff for 10th and 12th Standard for Secondary School and Senior Secondary School Examination.
23. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed bySHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL (Announced in the open court AGRAWAL Date: 2022.08.02 20:14:21 +05'30' on 30th July, 2022) (Shriya Agrawal) JSCC cum ASCJ cum GJ South East District/Saket Courts 30.07.2022 CS SCJ 1639/19 Arpita @ Premwati Vs CBSE & Ors Page No.14 of 14