Delhi District Court
Kanishhk Siingh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 7 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
CNR No. DLET03-000795-2021
CS No.: 389/21
Kanishhk Siingh
S/o Sh. Hariwansh Singh
R/o B-3, Police Staff Quarters,
Delhi - 110034
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education,
(C.B.S.E.)
Through its Regional Director
Shiksha Kendra, 2,
Community Centre, Preet Vihar,
......... Defendant
Date of Institution : 17.08.2021
Date of reserving of judgment : 07.06.2022
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 07.06.2022
Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction.
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, the court shall decide the present suit. CS No. 389/2021 Page 1 of 14
2. Succinctly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff studied from L.K.G. to 12th standard in DAV Public School, Pushpanjali Enclave, Outer Ring Road, Delhi-110034 and at the time of his admission in the above said School, the spelling of the name of the plaintiff was written as "Kanishk Singh" which remained the same till his passing of 12 th standard. The plaintiff's 10th and 12th Board Examinations were conducted by the defendant in the year 2013 and 2015 respectively and the certificates for passing of 10th and 12th standard were issued by the defendant with the name of Kanishk Singh.
3. It is pleaded that plaintiff for his personal reasons changed his name as Kanishhk Siingh from Kanishk Singh, by adding some letters, for all purposes by adopting due procedure as per the rules of the government and got it published in two national daily newspapers i.e. Hindustan (Hindi) in the addition of 9th January, 2016 and Hindustan (English Version) of the even date and got it published in the Gazette of India weekly Saturday February, 27 to March 04, 2016.
4. The plaintiff made a request in writing to the defendant requesting to enter his changed name i.e. Kanishhk Siingh in his educational certificates. It is further stated that plaintiff also got changed the spelling of his name as Kanishhk Siingh in his Adhar Card and Driving License. It is further stated CS No. 389/2021 Page 2 of 14 that request for change of name of plaintiff was also declined by the defendant.
5. Thus, on the above stated grounds, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring that after the change and publication of gazette notification in the Gazette of India weekly 27th February - 04th March, 2016, the name of the plaintiff for all purposes is and may be known as Kanishhk Siingh. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of mandatory declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant, its official and employee etc. to rectify the name of plaintiff in his all educational records by adding some letter/alphabets i.e. "H" after "H" in Kanishk and "I" after "I" in Singh of the name of plaintiff and the name of plaintiff as "Kanishhk Siingh" instead of "Kanishk Singh" and entered rectified spelling of the name of the plaintiff in his all educational records and further to issue 10th & 12th certificates.
6. The defendants filed written statement (WS) to the plaint, interalia contending that the Central Board of Secondary Education is a Society which was created pursuant to Government Notification. It is stated that CBSE also known as CBSE is an autonomous society, which is fully self-financed. It is stated that C.B.S.E frames its own rules and is governed CS No. 389/2021 Page 3 of 14 by them. C.B.S.E has its rules and regulations regarding change of name/candidate father name/candidate mother name. It is further stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not tenable in view of the amended Rule 69.1 (i) of the Examination By-Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education and the amended Notification dated 01.02.2018.
7. It is stated that application for correction in name of candidates/father/mother/guardians name will be considered only within five years of declaration of result. Defendant no.1 i.e C.B.S.E. has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Sajjad Barakat vs CBSE" in WP (C) No. 5967/2008.
8. It is stated that plaintiff had passed 10th class examination in the year 2013 and had passed his 12th class examination in the year 2015 and had filed the suit in the year 2021 almost after 8 years of passing of his 10th class examination. It is further stated that plaintiff in his plaint himself admitted that his name was Kanishk Singh till 12th standard. It is further stated that no cause of action has arisen of the purpose of filing the present suit and such the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
9. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant.
CS No. 389/2021 Page 4 of 14 ISSUES
10. The following issues were framed in the present matter:-
(i) Whether the present suit is not maintainable being time barred as per Rule 69.1(1) of the Examination Bye Laws of CBSE ? OPD
(ii) Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for not having any cause of action ? OPD1
(iii) Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected for non-
joinder/mis-joinder of parties ? OPD
(iv) Whether the suit is barred by Section 58 of Limitation Act ? OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
(vii). Relief, if any.
EVIDENCE:
11. In order to prove the case, Mr. Kanishhk Siingh examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A & B. He relied upon the following documents:- CS No. 389/2021 Page 5 of 14
1. The copies of 10th and 12th mark sheets which are Ex.PW1/1 and PW1/2 (OSR).
2. The copies of paper cutting of Hindustan (English and Hindi version) which are Ex.PW1/3 and EX.PW1/4 (OSR).
3. The copy of Gazette notification dated 27.04.2016 which is EX.PW1/5.
4. The copy of said request letter which is EX.PW1/6 (OSR).
5. The copy of defendant's letter to the D.A.V Public School which is Ex.PW1/7.
6. The copies of documents submitted by the D.A.V. Public School are Ex.PW.1/8 (OSR).
7. The copies of Adhar Card and driving license which are Ex.PW.1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 (OSR).
8. The copy of letter dated 31.05.2017 which is Ex.PW1/11.
9. The copy of letter dated 17.02.2021 which is Ex.PW1/12.
The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 29.04.2022. Defendant has not led any evidence.
12. This Court has heard the final arguments advanced by the respective counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 i.e C.B.S.E and the entire record is carefully perused.
CS No. 389/2021 Page 6 of 14 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL POSITION:
13. The issue no.(i) & (iv) are taken together as these issues pertains to the question of law :
Issue no. (i) Whether the present suit is not maintainable being time barred as per Rule 69.1 (1) of the Examination Bye Laws of CBSE? OPD Issue no. (iv) Whether the suit is barred by Section 58 of Limitation Act ? OPD
14. The defendant in his WS stated that suit of the plaintiff is time barred as the same is filed almost eight years of passing of class 10 th examination. It is contended that plaintiff passed his 10 th class in the year 2013 and class 12th in the year 2015. It is further contended that gazette notification was done in the year 2016 i.e. almost three years of passing of the class 10 th examination.
15. The defendant has not lead his evidence, however, Court can take the judicial notice of the bye-laws of CBSE. Perusal of the examination bye- laws of CBSE and amended notification dated 01.02.2018 shows that change of candidate name can be considered upon fulfillment of two prior conditions i.e. permission of Court of law and gazette notification. Period of limitation for the same is five years from declaration of result. The CS No. 389/2021 Page 7 of 14 application/request Ex.PW1/6 stated to be made in the year 2016. Thus, it is apparent that application/request is filed within the period of five years from the date of publication of examination.
16. Vide letter dated 31.05.2017 Ex.PW1/11, the request of the plaintiff was declined by the defendant. Thereafter, defendant again made request to the CBSE and vide letter dated 17.02.2021 Ex.PW1/12, the request was again declined by the CBSE. Thus, it is apparent that plaintiff was pursuing his case before the CBSE for correction/change of his name. Thus, it cannot be said that cause of action first arose in the year 2016. In my considered view, cause of action for filing the present petition accrued on 17.12.2021 when the request of the plaintiff is again declined by the defendant. So, suit of the plaintiff is within the period of limitation. So, both the issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue no.(ii) Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for not having any cause of action ? OPD1
17. The onus to prove above stated issue was upon the defendant. However, defendant has not produced any evidence. Plaintiff has been pursuing his grievance before the defendant. Ex.PW1/11 & Ex.PW1/12 CS No. 389/2021 Page 8 of 14 clearly established that cause of action lie in favour of plaintiff. So, I am satisfied that plaintiff has cause of action in filing the present case. Issue no.3 : Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected for non- joinder/mis-joinder of parties ? OPD
18. The onus to prove above stated issue was upon the defendant. However, no evidence produced by the defendant. Even preliminary objection in this regard not taken by the defendant in his WS.
19. The plaintiff is seeking relief against present defendant only. Plaintiff is the master of his ship. It is for the plaintiff to decide against whom he wants to contest. So, I am of the considered view that there is no requirement of joining the concerned school in the array of parties. So, I am satisfied that suit is maintainable against the present defendant. Issue no. (v) and (vi)
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP and
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP CS No. 389/2021 Page 9 of 14
20. Both these issues are interconnected, hence this Court shall discuss and decide them together. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff.
21. Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1. Perusal of his testimony shows that he got passed in 10th Board examination in the year 2013 and class 12th Board examination in the year 2015. Thereafter, due to some personal reasons, he changed his name as "Kanishhk Siingh" from "Kanishk Singh". In this regard, he got published the changed name in the national newspapers and the same also got published in the gazette notification. The copies of newspaper cutting got exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4. The copy of gazette notification dated 27.04.2016 is exhibited as Ex.PW1/5. The plaintiff made a letter/request to the defendant regarding change in his name. The said letter/application exhibited as Ex.PW1/6. The plaintiff got changed his name as Kanishhk Siingh in his Aadhar Card and driving license. Copy of the same exhibited as Ex.1/9 and Ex.PW1/10. PW1 in his cross-examination stated that he wants to change his name from "Kanishk Singh" to "Kanishhk Siingh".
CS No. 389/2021 Page 10 of 14
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs. CBSE & Ors." Civil Appeal No.3905/2011 passed on 03.06.2021 discussed the entire bye-laws of CBSE and held the following :-
"171. As regards request for "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records.
Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.
(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE.
Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. Thus, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing CS No. 389/2021 Page 11 of 14 sworn affidavit containing, declaration and to indemnify the CBSE, and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the office Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along-with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).
(b) 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 CS No. 389/2021 Page 12 of 14 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."
22. Thus, in view of the above stated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, even if the change of name falls in the second category, still plaintiff is entitled for the change of name in documents issued by CBSE.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para no.172 of its judgment directed the CBSE to process the application of the applicants/students on the same lines as mentioned in paragraph no.170 and 171 of the judgment until amendment of relevant bye-laws. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also directed CBSE to take immediate steps to amend its bye-laws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it. CS No. 389/2021 Page 13 of 14
24. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that despite the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the bye-laws has not been amended till date.
25. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed by him. Hence, relief is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that name of the plaintiff is declared to be "Kanishhk Siingh" and not "Kanishk Singh". Defendant is directed to correct the name of the plaintiff as "Kanishhk Siingh" in all the documents issued by CBSE to the plaintiff.
Relief
26. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as to declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of correction in name of plaintiff as "Kanishhk Siingh" instead of "Kanishk Singh" in CBSE record.
27. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ
MANOJ KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
(Manoj Kumar)
2022.06.07
17:33:10
+0530
SCJ-cum-RC, East/KKD
Announced in the Court
today 7th of June, 2022.
CS No. 389/2021 Page 14 of 14