Bangalore District Court
Ganga S Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 13 September, 2024
OS No.7458/23-Judgment
KABC010305802023
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 12), BENGALURU
DATED: 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
PRESENT
SMT.JYOTHSNA D., LL.B.,LL.M., D.F.A.,
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 12),
BENGALURU
ORIGINAL SUIT No.7458/2023
PLAINTIFF GANGA S. REDDY,
D/o. Shankarappa,
W/o. Sunil Kumar Reddy,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.53, 4th Block,
MSB Line, Chamarajapete,
Bengaluru 560 018
(by Sri. D.B., Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANTS 1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Represented by its Chief
Secretary,
Department of Education,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru 560 001.
1
OS No.7458/23-Judgment
2) KARNATAKA SECONDARY
EDUCATION EXAMINATION
BOARD,
Represented by its Secretary,
6th Cross Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru, Karnataka
560 003.
3) DEPARTMENT OF PRE-
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
Represented by its Director,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru 560 003.
4) THE HEAD MASTER/
PRINCIPAL
PDJ JUNIOR COLLEGE AND
HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL,
Bi, Darbargalli, Bagalkot
Road, Bijapur,
Bijapur District.
5) ANJUMAN BOYS PU
COLLEGE,
Represented by its Principal,
Managoli Road,
Kanadadas Colony,
Bijapur 586 101.
6) RANI CHANNAMMA
UNIVERSITY,
Represented by its Vice
Chancellor,
Vidya Sangama, PBRH-4,
Karnataka 591156.
2
OS No.7458/23-Judgment
7) ANJUMAN ARTS, SCIENCE
& COMMERCE COLLEGE,
Represented by its Principal,
Manugoli Road,
Kanakadas Colony,
Vijaypura,
Karnataka 586 101.
8) UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION
AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
Represented by Chief
Secretary,
Bangla Sahib Road,
Behind Kali Mandir,
Gole Market,
New Delhi 110 001.
9) ELECTION COMMISSION OF
INDIA,
Represented by Chief Election
Commissioner,
Nirvachan Sadan,
Ashoka Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
10) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
Represented by
Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Revenue Building,
No.1, Queens Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
11) BENGALURU CITY POLICE,
Represented by The
Commissioner of Police,
No.1, Bhagwan Mahaveer
Veedhi, Sampangi Rama
Nagar, Bengaluru 560 001.
3
OS No.7458/23-Judgment
12) KARNATAKA STATE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Represented
by Director General Police,
Nunegundlapalli,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Sampangi Rama Nagar,
Bengaluru 560 001.
13) GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA INSURANCE
DEPARTMENT, Represented
by its Secretary,
Vishweswaraya Tower,
19th Floor, Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru 560 001.
Deft.No. 1 & 3 by 3rd ADGP
Deft.N.2 to 8, 11 to 13 - Exparte
Deft.No.9 - by Sri S.R.D.,
Advodate
Deft.No.8, 14 by Sri S.H.,
Advocate
Date of Institution of 17.11.2023
the Suit
Nature of the Suit (Suit Declaration
on Money, Suit
pronote, Suit for
declaration and
possession, Suit for
injunction etc.)
Date of the
commencement of
19.03.2024
recording of evidence
4
OS No.7458/23-Judgment
Date on which 13.09.2024
Judgment was
pronounced
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
-- 09 22
(JYOTHSNA D.,)
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit to declare her name as "Ganga.S. Reddy" instead of "Gangavva Agasar" by directing the defendants No.1 to 9 & 11 to 14 to change her old name and to declare her name as "Ganga.S.Reddy" instead of "Gangavva Shankareppa Agasar" by directing the defendant No.10 to change her old name and to pass any other order or grant any such reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that:- The plaintiff intends to change her name from her old name "Gangavva Agasar" to "Ganga S.Reddy" as she married one Sunil Kumar Reddy on 28.06.2023 and therefore, changed her name from Gangavva Agasar to Ganga S. Reddy vide Affidavit dated 24.08.2023 sworn before the Notary. In this regard, the 5 OS No.7458/23-Judgment plaintiff has taken paper publication in two newspapers ie., The India Express and Hosa Digantha dated 09.09.2023 and also got her name published in the State Gazette on 12.09.2023.
3. The name of the plaintiff has not been changed from Gangavva Agasar to Ganga S.Reddy in her Aadhaar Card, Election ID Card and further, in her PAN Card, her name is reflected as Gangavva Shankerappa Agasar despite plaintiff submitting affidavit dated 24.08.2023, paper publication dated 9.9.2023 and Gazette Notification dated 12.09.2023.
4. Plaintiff completed her education in the educational institutions of 3rd, 4th and 7th defendant. Marks Cards issued by the concerned defendants reflects her name as Gangavva Agasar.
5. Plaintiff is working as a Woman Police Constable in Karnataka Police Department and her employer's ID Card reflects her name as Gangavva Agasar. Insurance Policy issued by defendant No.13 also reflects her name as Gangavva Agasar. Hence, she has filed this suit seeking declaration and direction to the defendants to change her name from Gangavva Agasar to Ganga S. Reddy.
6. The cause of action for the suit arose to the plaintiff when the defendants 1 to 13 refused to change her name from Gangavva Agasar to Ganga S. Reddy despite she swearing to an affidavit before Notary on 22.08.2023, taking Gazette 6 OS No.7458/23-Judgment Notification and paper publication. The plaintiff has paid proper court fee on the plaint. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
7. Pursuant to service of suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared through the III ADGP, 8th 9th and 10th defendants' appeared through their respective advocates and filed their separate written statements.
8. In their written statement, the defendants 1 to 3 contended that as per the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not served notice to the defendants as stipulated under Section 80 of CPC. Plaintiff has not arrayed necessary parties to the suit and thus, the suit suffers from non joinder of necessary parties. The suit is barred by limitation as the same is filed after a lapse of considerable time. Averments in paragraphs 1 to 13 are all false . There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
9. The defendant No.8 in its written statement, has contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no cause of action for the suit. Plaintiff has to follow Aadhaar Act 2016 and Regulations thereto to effect change of her name in Aadhaar Card. The Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Sixth Amendment Regulations 2018 provides that the name can be updated twice by resident. In case the name 7 OS No.7458/23-Judgment is to be updated more than prescribed limit, it can be done through an exception handling process. The plaintiff has filed this suit without following the proper procedure and the Rules and instructions of Aadhaar Act and Regulations. From the records available in UIDAI Portal, the Aadhaar Number Holder ie., the plaintiff is left with two more chance. Plaintiff can update her name by providing Gazette Notification of name change. Mandatory Rules and Provisions cannot be overlooked while invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. Mere service of notice under Section 80 CPC will not create any right and it is also not compliance of Aadhaar Act and Regulations. There is no cause of action for the suit as the defendant has not failed to act as per its statutory duties. The allegations contained in the plaint which are not specifically traversed shall be deemed to be denied. On the above grounds, the 8th defendant prayed the Court dismiss the suit.
10. In its written statement, the 9th defendant has contended that the suit is not maintainable in its present form and substance. The plaintiff is not entitled to relief claimed by him in the suit.
11. As per the Voter Identity Card produced by the plaintiff, the Electoral Registration Officer of 30 Bijapur City Assembly Constituency has issued Voter Identity Card to her. The Electoral Registration Officer is the competent authority to effect any changes in the entries in Electoral Roll of the 8 OS No.7458/23-Judgment constituency and then to issue new Voters Identity Card. The Electoral Registration Officer, 30, Bijapur City Assembly Constituency is not made as party to this suit. Therefore, the above suit is liable to be dismissed.
12. As per the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960, any citizen wants his/her name to be entered into voter's list, has to submit Form 6 duly mentioning his/her name, age, father's name, mother's name, etc., to the Electoral Registration Officer after making a declaration that all the information furnished by him/her are true and correct. The Electoral Registration Officer, 30, Bijapur City Assembly Constituency has entered the name and other details of plaintiff in the Electoral Roll as per information provided by her and has issued Voter's Identity Card. Similarly, if any Voter seeks changes in entries in the Electoral Roll, he shall submit Form 8 to the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer along with the supportive documents. After verification, the Electoral Registration Officer will effect changes in the entries of the Electoral Roll. Having not approached the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer ie., competent authority, the plaintiff cannot seek direction against defendant No.9. There is no cause of action for the suit. After declaration of her name, the further prayer sought for by the plaintiff ie., direction to defendant No.9 to change her old name cannot be granted as he is not the competent authority to effect changes in the entries made in Electoral 9 OS No.7458/23-Judgment Rolls and Voter's Identity Card. The suit filed without following the procedures prescribed in Parliamentary Enactment and the Rules made thereunder, is not maintainable and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
13. The 10th defendant has filed his written statement, contending that the prayer of the plaintiff is only to change her name from Gangavva Shankerappa Agasar to Ganga S. Reddy. None of the paras in the plaint has any relevance to income tax department except para 5 and 11, which speaks about PAN. The work related to updation in PAN data has been outsourced to Protean by the department and the office of 10 th defendant is not doing any updation. The work related to correction/changes in PAN Card details such as name, address etc., has been outsourced by the department to two service providers - Protean and which can be done by two methods ie., Office-line Mode and Online mode. Such application shall be processed by the service provider and the data will be reflected in PAN card once the same is updated by service providers in database of income tax department. Hence, there is no cause of action for the suit pending against the Income Tax Department for filing this suit. Hence, defendant No.10 prayed the Court to dismiss the suit against it.
14. On the basis of above pleadings and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following issues are framed for the determination of this Court;
10OS No.7458/23-Judgment Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff proves that she has changed her name from "Gangavva Agasar/Gangavva Shankareppa Agasar" to "Ganga S.Reddy" by due process ?
Issue No.2 : Whether the defendant No.9 proves that the suit is barred by jurisdiction against him under Section 30(b) of the Representatives of People Act, 1959?
Issue No.3 : Whether the defendant No.10 proves that there is no cause of action against him in this suit?
Issue No.4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for?
Issue No.5 : What order or decree?
15. To prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself entered into witness box and got examined as PW 1 and Exs.P 1 to Ex.P.20 are got marked through her. The III ADGP Smt. Sumangala Hegde on behalf of defendant No 1, Smt.SGH Advocate on behalf of defendant No 8 and Sri SRD Advocate on behalf of defendant No 9 cross examined PW 1 to defend their respective sides and to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Though defendant Nos.1 to 3, 8, 9, 10 filed their written statements separately and cross examined PW 1, but did not lead their evidence.
11OS No.7458/23-Judgment
16. Heard both the sides, perused materials placed on record and accordingly, this Court answers above Issues as under;
Issue No 1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No 2 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No 3 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No 4 : In the partly Affirmative;
Issue No 5 : As per the final Order;
For the following;
REASONS
17. Issue No 1 :- Admittedly, this suit is filed for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed below;
"a) To Declare the Plaintiff name as "Ganga.S. Reddy"
instead of "Gangavva Agasar" by directing the Defendants No. 1 to 9, & 11 to 14 to change her Old name; and,
b) To Declare the Plaintiff name as "Ganga.S.Reddy"
instead of "Gangavva Shankareppa Agasar" by directing the Defendant No.10 to change her Old name; and, 12 OS No.7458/23-Judgment
c) To pass any other order or grant any such reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and necessary In the interest of justice and equity."
18. To prove her above narrated case, plaintiff herself entered into witness box and got examined herself by oath as PW 1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief under which all the plaint averments are reiterated. To substantiate her case, she has produced certain documents which are marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.20. The learned Counsel for the defendant No.1, defendant No.8, defendant No.9 and defendant No.10 separately cross examined her. But they did not lead their evidence.
19. In her documentary evidence, Exs.P.9 to 18 are her educational records such as SSLC Marks Card, PUC Marks Card, B.Sc., Marks Cards, B.Sc., passing certificate and Convocation Certificate, which are the documents in which she needs correction of her name.
20. Exs.P.6 to Ex.P.8 are her authenticated documents such as Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Voter's ID Card respectively which show her name as GANGAVVA AGSAR and she prayed for correction of her name in these documents too.
21. Ex.P.19 is her Employment Identity Card issued by the Commissioner of Police and Ex.P.20 is her KGID insurance 13 OS No.7458/23-Judgment bond which shows her name as GANGAVVA AGASAR. She prayed for correction of her name in these documents also.
22. As per the above documentary evidence, there is no difference or mistakes in her name as all the educational documents, her authenticated documents for identity and the documents pertaining to her employment shows the same name as GANGAVVA AGASAR. But in view of her marriage, she voluntarily wants to change her name as GANGA S. REDDY. In support of the same, she has produced original invitation card of her marriage marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.2(a) in which her name is shown as Ganga S., and her parents' names are shown as Late Sri Shankar and Smt. Kasturi. Though her name is shown as GANGA S., in this document, but in her SSLC and PUC marks cards, her parents name is entered as Kasturi and Shankarappa and in all other documents mentioned above, her father's name is entered as Shankarappa hence, it is clear that GANGA AGASAR and GANGA S., are the names of plaintiff only. As per Ex.P.2 and 2(a), the plaintiff married Sri Sunil Kumar Reddy. Then in the proposed new name of plaintiff, "S" stands for Sunil Kumar and "Reddy" stands for the sir-name attained through her husband after her marriage with him. Next to that, Ex.P.1 is the self-declaration affidavit of plaintiff dated 22-08-2023 attested before notary public named B. Chitra (Reg.No 10153) in which plaintiff declared herself that because of her marriage with Sunil Kumar R., from 22-08-2023 onwards 14 OS No.7458/23-Judgment she shall be addressed as GANGA S., REDDY. After such self- declaration through affidavit before Notary Public, she has published "public notice" to bring in to the notice of general public regarding change of her name by publishing it in the New Indian Express English newspaper and Hosadigantha Kannada newspaper dated 09-09-2023 which are marked as Exs.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Further, Ex.P.5 is the intimation letter dated 12-09-2023 issued by the Government of Karnataka through the Office of the Director of Printing, Stationary and Publication to the plaintiff with information that, the Government press will publish change of name in Karnataka Gazette only in respect of Karnataka State Government Employees. Further informed that those persons who are not in Karnataka State Government Service, Private Persons, Students, have to seek their own legal advice for the change of name as per Government Order Cited in Reference (1) and Press Manual Article No 314(2) and printing Manual Article No.91. As per Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20, it establishes that she is an employee under Government of Karnataka working for Police Department which is an undisputed fact as per her cross examination. As per written statements also, there is no dispute about her present name and her employment status. In three written statements, they disputed about maintainability of suit in respect of prayer for directions against them as prayed in the plaint.
15OS No.7458/23-Judgment
23. As per the above documentary evidence, the plaintiff has complied the process for changing of her name. In her cross examination, nothing contra is elicited regarding declaration of her name as GANGA S., REDDY in the place of her present name GANGAVVA AGASAR. As a civil right one can change his/her name as per his/her will and wish but not for whims and fancy and the same is opined in plenty of precedents. As the same is used for identity of a person and if it is changed, it will not effect on his other rights and it will not harm general public. Hence, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act gives grounds to declare one's name. But, such changing of name shall be noticed to the public by way of publication of public notice which has wide circulation as the changing of identification of person in society shall be noticed by the public as the person is a social being who is living with system and order in the society at large.
24. In this regard the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rayaan Chawla vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 6 November, 2020 (AIR 2021 (NOC) 229 (DEL.)) observed as;
"14. Hence, the aforesaid judgment has clearly stated that to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) as well as right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be 16 OS No.7458/23-Judgment denied that the right to change a name is a protected right and the petitioner would normally be not denied the said right on technical issues.
25. As per the above documentary evidence, prior to her marriage, her born name given by her parents is GANGAVVA AGASAR. She married Mr. Sunil Kumar R.,/Sunil Kumar Reddy, then her name will be suffixed as 'S. Reddy' and regarding that, she made self-attested affidavit through notary public and published public notice of change of her name and steps are also taken by her to publish in government gazzete too. And there is contra elicited in her cross examination to this extent and as per the written statement, changing of her name is undisputed fact as in written statement there is no whisper about her declaration of name which establishes ground under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act.
26. Therefore, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions, the plaintiff has made out ground to declare her name as GANGA S. REDDY in the place of her present name GANGAVVA AGASAR. Hence, this Court answers Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
27. Issue No 2 : The defendant No.9, the Election Commission of India, has denied the relief of mandatory injunction of direction against it as this court has no jurisdiction under the Representation of the People Act 1950 17 OS No.7458/23-Judgment which is for preparation of electoral rolls. The learned Counsel for defendant No.9 argued on the same.
28. Firstly, as per Section 13 A of said Act, the Chief Electoral Officer is the concerned authority for correction of all electoral rolls in the state which is reproduced here under.
"13A. Chief electoral officers.--(1) There shall be for each State a chief electoral officer who shall be such officer of Government as the Election Commission may, in consultation with that Government, designate or nominate in this behalf.
(2) Subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission, the chief electoral officer shall supervise the preparation, revision and correction of all electoral rolls in the State under this Act."
Next to that in the each assembly constituency there is an Electoral Registration Officer to revise the electoral roll as;
"13B. Electoral registration officers.--(1) The electoral roll '(for each parliamentary constituency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir or in a Union territory not having a Legislative Assembly], each assembly constituency and each council constituency] shall be prepared and revised by an electoral registration officer who shall be such officer of Government or of a local authority as the Election 18 OS No.7458/23-Judgment Commission may, in consultation with the Government of the State in which the constituency is situated, designate or nominate in this behalf.
(2) An electoral registration officer may, subject to any prescribed restrictions, employ such persons as he thinks fit for the preparation and revision of the electoral roll for the constituency."
29. Moreover as per Section 19 of this Act, that every person has to register his roll in electoral record in ordinary resident in a constituency. As per Ex.P.8 that is plaintiff's voter's Id card, her ordinary resident of constituency entered as the Election Registration Officer-30-Bijapur City Assembly Constituency.
30. There is a clear provision about correction of the entries in electoral rolls under Section 22 which is reproduced here under;
"22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls.-If the electoral registration officer for a constituency, on application made to him or on his own motion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks fit, that any entry in the electoral roll of constituency--
(a) is erroneous or defective in any particular, 19 OS No.7458/23-Judgment
(b) should be transposed to another place in the roll on the ground that the person concerned has changed his place of ordinary residence within the constituency, or
c) should be deleted on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll,the electoral registration officer shall, subject to such general or special directions, if any, as may be given by the Election Commission in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete the entry 'after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed):
Provided that before taking any action on any ground under clause (a) or clause (b) or any action under clause (c) on the ground that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency, the electoral registration officer shall give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to 20 OS No.7458/23-Judgment him '[after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed]."
31. Then, definitely this court is not the concerned authority to give direction defendant No.9 to correct the entries of plaintiff's name recorded in the records maintained by him.
32. As per Section 24 of the said Act, this court is not the Appellate Court also in the matter relating to such documents of election. There is the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 which totally excludes the civil courts to entertain the cases relating to the same.
33. Moreover, Section 30 of said Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this case against defendant No 9 as;
"30. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred.-No civil court shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency; or
(b) to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of an electoral registration officer, or of any decision given by any authority appointed under this Act for the revision of any such roll."21
OS No.7458/23-Judgment
34. Further, it is held in B.M. Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, (AIR 1963 SC 458) that civil court had no jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of the electoral registration officer and consequently the question could not be agitated before the Munsiff in whose court the election petition had been filed or before the High Court in appeal. In cross examination of PW 1 by the learned counsel for defendant No.9, it is elicited that Ex.P 8 issued to her by Bijapur City Assembly constituency. And they informed her through phone call that they will rectify the same after correction in Aadhaar Card. Then it is clear that the said Bijapur City Assembly constituency is authorised person for correction in electoral documents.
35. Hence, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions, the defendant No.9 has made out that, the suit is barred by jurisdiction against him under Section 30(b) of the Representatives of Peoples Act 1959 and accordingly, this Court answers Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
36. Issue No 3 : Defendant No.10 is the Income Tax Department wherein plaintiff in prayer (b) specifically sought direction against it. The document of plaintiff relating to this department is her PAN Card which is marked as Ex.P 7. It is well known that for correction in PAN card and for issuance of duplicate PAN card or for issuance of rectified PAN card, it has its own portal of website where is interference of civil court is 22 OS No.7458/23-Judgment not necessary. The webportal "https://www.onlineservices. Protean.com/paam/endUserRegisterContact.html" gives details and guidelines for correction in PAN card. Definitely, this suit is premature against defendant No.10 and also against defendant No.8 that is Unique Identification Authority of India who is the concerned office regarding Aadhaar Card. As narrated in its written statement, it is well known to a common prudent man also as there are two opportunities to the Aadhaar Card holder to make correction through its online website. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered in the Affirmative.
37. Issue No 4 : Now regarding correction in her educational records is concerned, as per circular of the Government of Karnataka in ED 100 DTB 2014 dated 26-10-2015, it is necessary to bring decree of declaration of correct name of the student after completion of SSLC and there is no direction for mandatory injunction against them. When there is competent civil court decree to correct the name of student, then it is their bounden duty correct the name as per decree.
38. Next to that regarding correction of the name of employee under Government, then there is a law of rules that is The Karnataka Government Servants ( Procedure for change of Names) Rules, 1967 as the concerned authority of department itself will correct or rectify it without intervention of any Court. There is a specific rule regarding change of name of women 23 OS No.7458/23-Judgment government servant under the said Rules. Moreover, as per circular No.19016/1/87-Estt(A) issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and training dated 12-03-1987, it is clearly provided that "if the Government employee desires to change in name, sir-name etc., then it is provided as "the execution of the deed should be followed by publication of the change in a prominent local news paper as well as in the Gazette of India at the Government employee's own expenses." Further, if a women employee changes her sir- name, then she should give a formal intimation to her appointing authority of her marriage and request for a change in her name. Here in this case plaintiff is correcting her name on account of marriage. But she is not only inserting initial of husband and his surname, she is also intended to change her name from GANGAVVA AGASAR to GANGA S., REDDY. As per Exs.P.1, 3 to 5, she has complied due procedure of changing of name by self-declaration, paper publication and publication in Government Gazzete. Hence, to the extent of declaratory relief of changing of the name, the suit is maintainable.
39. Therefore as per the above discussions, there is no impediment to declare the name of plaintiff as Ganga S. Reddy in the place of Gangavva Asagar. But, the plaintiff has filed suit against defendant No.9 without jurisdiction of this Court as under Section 30 of the Representatives of People Act 1959.
24OS No.7458/23-Judgment Regarding relief against defendant No.1, 8, 9, 11 to 13 is not maintainable under the Karnataka Government Servents (Procedure for Change of Names) Rules 1967 and the Gezzet circular No 19016/1/87-Estt(A) discussed supra. But as per circular of Government of Karnataka in ED 100 DTB 2015, the decree of declaration of name for correction in educational record is required, hence, as already discussed above, there is no impediment to declare her name. And on the basis of said declaration, it is bounden duty of defendant No.2 to 7 to correct her name in the record maintained by them on filing of application before them. Accordingly this court answers Issue No.4 Partly in the affirmative.
40. Issue No 5: For the forgoing discussions and findings on the above issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed partly, accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed partly.
It is hereby declared the name of the plaintiff as Ganga S. Reddy instead of Gangavva Agasar.
Plaintiff is at liberty to move an application before defendant Nos.2 to 7, the concerned educational authorities, for necessary corrections as per decree in her educational records.
25OS No.7458/23-Judgment The suit against defendant Nos.1, 8 to 13 is dismissed as not maintainable.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Sr.Sheristedar directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, revised and then pronounced in Open Court on 13.09.2024) (SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGALURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff. PW 1 - Ganga S. Reddy List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants. Nil.
List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.P.1 Notarised Affidavit dated 22.08.2023 regarding change of name Ex.P.2 Marriage Invitation Card of plaintiff with cover and 2(a) Ex.P.3 & Paper Publication dated 09.09.2023 in The New Indian Express and P.4 Hosa Digantha daily regtarding change of name Ex.P.5 Memorandum dated 12.09.2023 sent to Karnataka Gazette Press Ex.P.6 Aadhaar Card of PW1 Ex.P.7 PAN Card of PW1 26 OS No.7458/23-Judgment Ex.P.8 Voter ID Card of PW1 Ex.P.9 SSLC Marks Card of PW1 Ex.P.10 PUC Marks Card of PW1 Ex.P.11 B.Sc., Marks Card of PW1 to 16 Ex.P.17 B.Sc., Passing Certificate Ex.P.18 Convocation Certificate Ex.P.19 Identity Card issued by Bengaluru City Police Ex.P.20 Document issued by Karnataka Government Insurance Department List of documents marked for the defendants. Nil.
(SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGALURU 27 OS No.7458/23-Judgment (Order pronounced in Open Court vide separate Judgment, Order portion reads as under) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed partly.
It is hereby declared the name of the plaintiff as Ganga S. Reddy instead of Gangavva Agasar.
Plaintiff is at liberty to move an application before defendant Nos.2 to 7, the concerned educational authorities, for necessary corrections as per decree in her educational records.
The suit against defendant Nos.1, 8 to 13 is dismissed as not maintainable.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGALURU 28