Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Megha vs . Cbse & Anr. on 5 September, 2019

Suit No. 2106/18                               Page 1 of 20

         IN THE COURT OF DR. JAGMINDER SINGH
       JSCC-cum-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
     cum-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI

Suit No. : 2106/18
In the matter of :


1)    Ms. Megha,
      D/o Sh. Puran Chand,
      R/o D-184, Nawada Housing Complex,
      Nawada, Delhi-59.

                                    ........Plaintif

                          Versus

1)    Central Board of Secondary Education,
      Through its Chairman,
      Central Board of Secondary Education,
      12, Institutional Area, I.P. Estension,
      Patparganj, Delhi-110092.

2)    Gyan Sagar Public School,
      P-Block, Raj Nagar-II,
      Palam Colony, New Delhi-77.

                                    ......Defendants


Date of institution of the suit     :      05.12.2018
Final Arguments Heard on            :      04.09.2019
Date of Judgment                    :      05.09.2019
Final Order                         :      DISMISSED


 SUIT FOR DECLARATION & MANDATORY INJUNCTION


Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.
 Suit No. 2106/18                                    Page 2 of 20

JUDGMENT :

-

1. This is a suit for declaration & mandatory injunction.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present suit as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintif was appeared in the examination of class-10 th through her school i.e. defendant no.2 vide her Roll No.8243850 conducted by the defendant and passed the 10 th class examination from Board of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 had issued mark-sheet/Grade-Sheet/Certificate bearing Registration No. D117/65721/0050 in year 2017 in favour of plaintif. Exact & correct date of birth of plaintif is 26.01.2000. Inadvertently the name of plaintif was recorded as Meghaly and name of her mother was recorded as Ramvati Devi and name of her father was recorded as Puran with the school authorities as well as mark-sheet which were issued by the defendants in favour of plaintif after passing 10th class examination. As and when plaintif Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

came to know about the factum of some discrepancy in her name, father and mother's name, plaintif requested to the school authorities for correction/rectification of the names in school records but the school authorities advised the plaintif to approach the defendant no.1 regarding the same. Thereafter, plaintif approached the defendant no.1 and requested the officials of defendant no.1 for rectification in the mark-sheet of names of her and her parents, but officials of defendant no.1 advised the plaintif to approach the Court for seeking direction. Plaintif has to appear in intermediate and various competitive examination in near future. Plaintif has no other efficacious or speedy remedy except to file the present suit. Therefore, plaintif had filed the present suit. Cause of action to file the present suit firstly arose in favour of plaintif and against the defendants when plaintif came to know about the eventuality in her & her parents name in the mark-sheet issued by defendant no.1 and further arose when plaintif approached the defendants no. 1 & 2 to rectify the names in its record. It Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

further arose when defendant no.1 had advised the plaintif to approach the Court. The cause of action is still continued. This Court is having jurisdiction for trial of this suit.

3. On the suit of the plaintif, summons were issued to the defendants. Ld. Counsels for defendants no.1 & 2 were appeared and filed WS. WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 stating therein that the suit of the plaintif is not tenable in view of the amended rule 69.1 (i) of the Examination by-laws of the CBSE and in view of this no claim for change of name can be entertained by the CBSE; application for correction in name of candidate/ parents/ guardians will be considered only within one year before the date of declaration of result provided the application of candidate is forwarded by the Head of Institution with the following attested documents; defendant no.1 efect necessary correction after verification of the original record of school and the changes have been admitted by the Court and notified in Govt. Gazette before the publication of results of candidates; application for correction in date of Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

birth duly forwarded by the Head of School along with documents mentioned in bye-laws 69.2(iii) shall be entertained by the defendant no.1 only within five years of the date of declaration of result; plaintif has filed the present suit without any cause of action as such same is liable to be dismissed u/O VII R 11 CPC. In para-wise reply on merits, defendant no.1 had opposed the suit of the plaintif. WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 stating that the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed u/O VII R 11 CPC; names of parents of plaintif have been mentioned strictly according to the school records which have been maintained as per the self declaration and the documents produced by the guardians of student at the time of his admission for which defendant no.2 is not at fault; no cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of plaintif. In para-wise reply on merits, defendant no.2 had opposed the suit of the plaintif. Thereafter, On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed :-

Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

(i) Whether plaintif is entitled for a decree of declaration in her favour and against the defendants, as prayed for ? (OPP).

(ii) Whether plaintif is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in her favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP.

(iii) Relief.

4. After framing of issues, matter was fixed for plaintif's evidence. Plaintif had examined herself as PW1. Plaintif tendered her affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents :-

(1) Ex.PW1/A (OSR) i.e. the photocopy of Medical Identity Card issued by Airports Authority of India to her parents.

(2) PW1/B (OSR) i.e. the photocopy of her Aadhar Card.

(3) Ex.PW1/C (OSR) i.e. the photocopy of her SC Certificate.

(4) Ex.PW1/D (OSR) i.e. the photocopy of Voter I-

Card of her mother.

(5) Ex.PW1/E (OSR) i.e. the photocopy of order for registration of birth.

(6) Ex.PW1/F (OSR) i.e. the photocopy of Gazette published on 14 to 20.04.2018.

Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

(7) Ex.PW1/G (OSR) i.e. the photocopy of Pamphlet published in Jansatta Newspaper dated 04.04.2018.

5. No any other witness was examined by the plaintif and plaintif had closed PE vide her separate statement. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for DE. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1/CBSE had examined one witness as DW1 Sh. Kailash Chand who tendered his affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-

(1) Ex.DW1/1 i.e. the authority letter dated 20.08.2019.

(2) Ex.DW1/2 i.e. the notification dated 25.06.2015. (3) Ex.DW1/3 i.e. the circular dated 01.11.2017. (4) Ex.DW1/4 i.e. the notification dated 01.02.2018.

6. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant no.1 and DE was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 had also examined one witness as DW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar who tendered his affidavit Ex.DW2/A and relied upon the following documents:-

(1) Ex.DW2/1 (OSR) i.e. the copy of Admission Form Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

of Plaintif.

(2) Ex.DW2/2 (OSR) i.e. the copy of school Leaving Certificate of plaintif.

(3) Ex.DW2/3 (OSR) i.e. the extract of admission and withdrawal register.

7. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant no.2 and DE was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.

8. Final arguments heard. Ld. Counsel for plaintif argued that the plaintif had requested several times for the change/correction in her and her parents name to the defendants no.1 & 2. The plaintif had also got published the necessary changes in the names in the Newspaper as well as in the Gazette of India. The required changes/correction in her and her parents name are very much necessary for the future of the plaintif, otherwise, the plaintif may be deprived of from the benefits available to her due to her caste certificate. No any prejudice will be occurred to the defendants, if they do the necessary changes. Therefore, Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

present suit may be decreed in favour of plaintif.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1/CBSE opposed the contention of the Ld. counsel for plaintif. Ld. Counsel argued that the suit of the plaintif does not come under the purview of relevant bye-laws of the CBSE. CBSE had not entered any error in the plaintif or her parents name in the documents issued by it and same are issued as per the record received by the CBSE from defendant no.2/concerned school. Suit of the plaintif is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 also opposed the suit. He argued that the school authority had entered the particulars of the plaintif and her parents as per the self declaration form filled by the plaintif as well as according to the detail received in School Leaving Certificate of plaintif from her earlier school. The plaintif had also voluntarily signed against her detail filled in the list of candidates. There is no any mistake on the point of defendant no.2. Suit of the plaintif is without any merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

10. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsels for both parties and also gone through the documents placed on record by the parties.

11. Issue no. (i) is that Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration in her favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? Onus to prove this issue is upon plaintif. The plaintif had sought declaration to the efect that her & her parents name may be declared as 'Megha', 'Puran Chand' & 'Ramwati' respectively instead of 'Meghaly', 'Puran' & 'Ramvati' respectively. This relief of the plaintif comes under the purview of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act reads as under :-

• "Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.--Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation.--A trustee of property is a "person interest to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee".

12. Therefore, the language of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is clearly stating that any person may seek a declaration regarding his title or right against any person who is denying the same. In this suit, the defendants i.e. CBSE & the School has no any reason to raise any objection to the change of name of plaintif and her parents. Defendants are having objections in changing the names of plaintif and her parents in the concerned documents issued by them or entered in their record but the defendants are having no concern if plaintif changes the name of herself and her parents. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants are denying or interested to deny the right of the plaintif and her parents to change their names.

13. Moreover, during evidence, the plaintif had Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

placed on record notification published in Gazette of India dated 14 to 20.04.2018 Ex.PW1/F, wherein the plaintif had declared the fact that the actual name of her and her parents are 'Megha', 'Puran Chand' & 'Ramwati' respectively. The plaintif had also placed on record copy of newspaper 'Jansatta' dated 04.04.2018 Ex.PW1/G in which also a public notice has been published whereby the plaintif had declared that the actual names of her and her parents are 'Megha', 'Puran Chand' & 'Ramwati' respectively instead of 'Meghaly', 'Puran' & 'Ramvati Devi' respectively. Plaintif had also got issued her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/D2 having her name as Megha and her father's name as Puran Chand with issuing date 10.04.2019. Mother of the plaintif had also got issued her medical identity card from Airport Authority of India Ex.PW1/A having her name as Ramwati. In the birth certificate issued on 27.03.2018 also the names of plaintif and her parents are mentioned as Megha, Puran Chand and Ramwati respectively i.e. as plaintif wants to be declared. In her caste certificate Ex.PW1/C also the name of the plaintif Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

and her father are mentioned as Megha & Puran Chand respectively. There is no objection or denial on behalf of the defendants regarding these documents. Therefore, the required fact has already been got declared by the plaintif and these declarations/publications are not disputed on behalf of defendants. Hence, plaintif is failed to establish that she is entitled for the aforesaid declaration from the Court. Accordingly, issue no. (i) is decided against the plaintif.

14. Issue no. (ii) is that Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in her favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintif. As per the prayer clause, the plaintif had sought mandatory injunction in the form of direction to defendant no.1 to change names of plaintif and her parents from 'Megha', 'Puran Chand' & 'Ramwati' respectively instead of 'Meghaly', 'Puran' & 'Ramvati Devi' respectively in the certificate No. D117/65721/0050 issued in year 2017 and also to issue fresh certificate by Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

mentioning the correct details. The aforesaid certificate No. D117/65721/0050 is grade-sheet-cum-Certificate of Performance of the plaintif for secondary school examination for the year 2017 i.e. Ex.PW1/D1. The plaintif is seeking the requested changes in her and her parents names in this documents i.e. Ex.PW1/D1 issued by defendant no.1.

15. As per the Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1/CBSE, the CBSE is a national board of secondary education which is an autonomous body working under ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD), Government of India and is governed by the rules/by-laws framed by its own. He further mentioned that any change in name etc. of the candidate or his/her parents is governed by Examination by-laws no. 69.1

(i) of the CBSE. For clarification, the relevant rule 69.1 (i) is reproduced as "Applications regarding changes in the name or surname of the candidates may be considered provided the changes have been admitted by the court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

of the result of the candidate". Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 had also referred circular issued by CBSE dated 10.11.2017, according to which the relevant rules were modified regarding correction in the candidate or his/her parents name to the extent that time limit for such correction has been extended up to five years from the date of declaration of result. This circular is placed on record as Ex.DW1/3. However, Ex. DW1/3 regarding extension of time up to five years is applicable in cases of 'Correction' and not in cases of 'Change'. Therefore, as per the notification Ex.DW1/2, the bye-laws 69.1 (i) dated 25.06.2015 will be applicable to the request of the plaintif regarding the necessary changes. According to the said rule, the plaintif can only be permitted to change her name or her parents name or surname, if she had got published the same in Govt. Gazette and is admitted by the Court of Law before the publication of her result.

16. During examination-in-chief, DW2 had placed on record admission form of the plaintif Ex.DW2/1, School Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

Leaving Certificate of the plaintif Ex.DW2/2 and extract of admission & withdrawal register Ex.DW2/3. In the admission form Ex.DW2/1, the name of the plaintif and her parents are mentioned as 'Meghaly', 'Puran' & 'Ramvati Devi'. As per Ex.DW2/1, the plaintif had taken admission in the defendant no.2 school in second class and same also bears the signature of mother of the plaintif. During cross- examination, it is stated by DW2 that at the time of admission of the plaintif, there was no any documentary proof regarding particulars of the plaintif or her parents. But DW2 had also placed on record School Leaving Certificate of the plaintif Ex.DW2/2 dated 23.07.2008 issued by the Principal MCD School, Dwarka Sector-7, New Delhi in which the plaintifs and her parents names are mentioned in Hindi as 'Meghaly', 'Puran' & 'Ramvati Devi'. Therefore, the particulars in the admission form Ex.DW2/1 are in accordance with the School Leaving Certificate from earlier school of plaintif Ex.DW2/2. DW2 had also placed on record extract of admission and withdrawal register Ex.DW2/3 in Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

which also the particulars of plaintif and her parents are mentioned as 'Meghaly', 'Puran' & 'Ramvati Devi'.

17. During cross-examination, it is admitted by the plaintif/PW1 that she had signed on the LOC/Exam Form after seen her name. However, she had voluntarily stated that she was forced to sign the same by the school authority under the threatening that if she will not sign, then she will not be allowed to undergo the examination. The plaintif had not placed on record any complaint or letter etc. written to any authority by her regarding the alleged threatening. Further there is no explanation on behalf of plaintif that if she had signed the LOC under compulsion, then why she had not filed the suit or completed the necessary formalities as per bye-law of CBSE 69.1 (i) before the publication of the result.

18. Therefore, it is clear that defendant no.1/CBSE had issued the document in question i.e. Ex.PW1/D1 to the plaintif having her & her parents details same as per the school record of the plaintif i.e. as per Ex.DW2/1, Ex.DW2/2 Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

& Ex.DW2/3 and that the plaintif had not applied for change of her and her parents name to the CBSE before publication of the result. The required change in the name of plaintif and her parents were neither admitted by the court of law nor notified in the Government Gazette before publication of the result of plaintif as per the requirement of the provisions mentioned in Examination by-law No.69.1 (i) of the CBSE. It is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Aditya Srivastava (Minor) the Natural Guardian Mother Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. that where applicant does not apply for any change in his name etc. in the relevant document before the declaration of result as per the provisions mentioned in the Examination bye-law No.69.1 (i) of the CBSE, his request made later on cannot be allowed.

19. The validity of the relevant by-laws of the CBSE had already been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Ms. Jigya Yadav (Minor) (through Guardian/Father Mr. Hari Singh) vs. Central Board of Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

Secondary Education & Ors. in W.P.(C) 3774/2010 & CM 7565/2010.

20. Regarding change of the name, it is further held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Mazhar Saleem Chandroth (minor) vs. Central Board of Secondary Education in W.P.(C) 578/2017 that "The case of petitioner is with regard to change in name and such request is governed by bye-law 69.1 (i). Further it is not the case of the petitioner that the request for the change was made before the declaration of the result. The bye-law 69.1

(i) clearly stipulates that such a request needs to be made before the publication of the result of the candidate".

21. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, facts & circumstances of the case, documents placed on record and relevant case laws, the plaintif is not entitled for decree of mandatory injunction in her favour and against the defendant no.1/CBSE, as prayed for due to non-fulfillment of necessary requirement as prescribed under relevant examination bye-laws of the defendant no.1/CBSE. Issue no. Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.

(ii) is accordingly decided against the plaintif and in favour of defendants.

22. Relief: Suit of the plaintif is dismissed.

23. No order as to costs.

24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

25. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court
on this 05th day of September, 2019
                                               Digitally signed
                                               by JAGMINDER
                                 JAGMINDER     SINGH
                                 SINGH         Date: 2019.09.05
                                               16:05:35 +0530

                                (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH)
                             JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge,
                                 Dwarka Courts : Delhi

Note: This judgment is having Twenty pages and each page is bearing my signatures.

(DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) JSCC-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge, Dwarka Courts : Delhi Megha Vs. CBSE & Anr.