Delhi District Court
Sh. Deepak vs C.B.S.E on 23 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Sh. MANOJ KUMAR, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
/RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 467/18
Unique Case ID/CNR no.DLET03-000700-2018
Sh. Deepak
S/o Sh. Sarman
R/o 217, T-Huts,
Road, No.6, Indira Camp, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi-110049
...........Plaintiff
Versus
1. C.B.S.E.
Head Office,
2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092
Service to be effected through its
Chairman or any Designated Officer
2. Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya
Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi
School ID No.61824,
Service to be effected through its
Principal/In-charge
........defendants
Date of institution of the case : 11.05.2018
Date of Judgment reserved : 23.05.2022
Date of Judgment pronounced : 23.05.2022
CS No. 467/18 Page 1 of 12
Suit for Mandatory Injunction and Declaration
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff had passed the 10th and 12th class examination from CBSE Board of defendant no.1 in the year 2012-2014 and 2016 vide roll no.875830 and roll no.9718115 respectively and the defendant no.1 issued a Grade Sheet cum certificate of performance in 10th class vide 10th certificate no.0597705 dated 20.05.2014 and also passed 12th class vide 12th certificate no.0456517 dated 21.05.2016 in the name of the plaintiff. The correct spelling of his father's name is Sarman and not Shravan. It is further stated that all the documents of plaintiff i.e. Aadhar card, Pan card and Caste Certificate, the spelling of name of father of plaintiff is mentioned as Sarman.
2. It is pleaded that at the time of filling of form for admission of IXth class, the plaintiff made request with the defendant no.2 to correct/rectify his father's name, but the defendant no.2 gave assurance to the plaintiff that above said correction/rectification would be rectified at the time of filling the examination form of 10 th class, but despite repeated request made by the plaintiff to the defendant no.2 in regard of rectification/correction his father's name, defendant no.2 did not rectify CS No. 467/18 Page 2 of 12 the above correction on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that plaintiff also requested to the defendant no.1 to rectify his father's name in the 10th class admission form.
3. It is stated that at the time of filling the form for examination of Xth class, the plaintiff was minor and his age was about 15 years and the plaintiff again requested to the defendant no.2 for rectifying/changing of his father's name, but the defendant no.2 suggested to the plaintiff that he should approached to the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 also told that they have no power to change/rectify/correct the name of his father's name.
4. Thus, on the above stated grounds, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the correction/rectify the name of his father as Sarman instead of Shravan. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of Mandatory Injunction thereby, directing the defendants to issue a fresh certificate, mark-sheet of 10th and 12th class and migration certificate also after changing/rectifying the necessary correction in name of plaintiff's father.
5. The defendant no.1 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 CS No. 467/18 Page 3 of 12 Notification; that the C.B.S.E frames its own rules and is governed by them. C.B.S.E has its rules and regulations regarding change of name; 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.
6. 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.
7. Defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court.
The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant.
ISSUES
8. The following issues were framed in the present matter:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Relief.
CS No. 467/18 Page 4 of 12
EVIDENCE:
10. In order to prove the case, Sh. Deepak was examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents :-
i) Ex. PW-1/A(OSR) is the copy of migration certificate.
ii) Ex. PW-1/B (colly 3 pages)(OSR) is the publication in the gazette of India for the period September, 02 to September, 08, 2017.
iii) Ex. PW-1/C which is the copy of class-X Grade-sheet cum-
certificate of Performance.
iv) Ex. PW-1/D(OSR) is the copy of class XII mark-sheet.
v) Ex. PW-1/E (OSR) is the copy of class-XII certificate.
vi) Ex. PW-1/F (OSR) is the copy of class XII Provisional Certificate.
vii) Ex. PW-1/G is the copy of character certificate.
viii) Ex. PW-1/H is the copy of schedule caste certificate.
ix) Ex.PW1/I (OSR) is the copy of domicile certificate.
x) Ex.PW1/J (OSR) is the copy of Aadhar card of father of plaintiff.
xi) Ex.PW1/K (OSR) is the copy of Aadhar card of plaintiff.
Ex.PW1/L (OSR) is the copy of Pan Card.
xii) Ex.PW1/M (OSR) is the copy of permanent residence certificate of father of plaintiff.
xiii) Ex.PW1/N (OSR) is the copy of caste certificate.
xiv) Ex.PW1/O is the original newspaper "the India Express"
dated 08.08.2017 containing the relevant publication at CS No. 467/18 Page 5 of 12 point A.
xv) Mark-A is the copy of Primary Education Certificate of his nephew namely Santosh.
xvi) Ex.PW1/Q (OSR) is the copy of class VI marksheet of his nephew namely Santosh.
xvii) Ex.PW1/R(OSR) is the copy of class VII mark-sheet of his nephew namely Santosh.
xviii) Ex.PW1/S (OSR) is the copy of class VIII marksheet of his nephew namely Santosh.
The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 02.12.2019.
11. Defendant no.1 i.e C.B.S.E. examined Sh. Raju Maurya, Superintendent as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/1. He relied upon the following documents :-
i) Ex. DW-1/A is the copy of list of candidates of class X.
ii) Ex. DW-1/B is the copy of tabulation register of class X.
iii) DW1/C is the coy of notification dated 01.02.2018.
The defendants's evidence was closed on 01.02.2020.
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. 467/18 Page 6 of 12 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL POSITION:
13. The Issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue no. (i ) and (ii) i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP and ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
14. 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.
15. Counsel for the Plaintiff has argued that the name of the father of the plaintiff be corrected from "Shravan" to "Sarman" for all purposes in the interest of justice. It is further stated that the name of the father of the plaintiff has been written as "Sarman" in all the documents of plaintiff i.e. Aadhar Card, Pan Card and Caste Certificate.
16. Counsel for the defendant no.1 i.e C.B.S.E submitted that the suit is not maintainable as per Rule 69.1 (i) of the amended CS No. 467/18 Page 7 of 12 C.B.S.E. Bye-Laws, amended as on 25.06.2015 and 01.02.2018 which do not permit any change in name after publication of the result of the candidate.
17. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff has sufficiently proved his case and grave injustice would be caused to him in case, name of his father is not corrected from "Shravan" to "Sarman" since all other documents i.e Aadhar Card, Pan Card and Caste Certificate etc depicts name of the father of the plaintiff as "Sarman". However, in Xth and XIIth class Mark-sheets, certificates and migration certificate, mentions the name of the father of the plaintiff as "Shravan".
18. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 shows that Ex.PW1/J i.e. Aadhar card of father of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/K i.e. Aadhar card of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/I i.e. Domicile certificate of plaintiff, Ex.PW1/H i.e. caste certificate of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/M i.e. permanent resident certificate, of the father of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/L i.e. Pan Card of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/N i.e. caste certificate of the father of the plaintiff shows the name of father of plaintiff as "Sarman".
19. PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not move any application to the CBSE after passing his class 10 th examination in the year 2014. He clearly stated that he was not aware that his father's name was written as "Shravan" in the list of candidates (LOC). He also CS No. 467/18 Page 8 of 12 admitted that in class 6th admission form, his father's name is written as "Sarman". He also admitted that in class 5 th school leaving certificate, his father name is written as "Sharvan". He also admitted that in admission and withdrawal register, his father's name is written as "Sharvan". He admitted that he has not moved any application either in school or CBSE to change his father's name till date.
20. DW2 proved the document Ex.DW1/A i.e. copy of list of candidates of class-X, DW2 proved Ex.DW1/B i.e. copy of tabulation register of class-X and he proved Ex.DW1/C which is the copy of notification dated 01.02.2018.
21. The main defence of the defendant no.1/CBSE is that as per their bye-laws, the correction in name of candidate/father/mother will be considered only within 5 years of declaration of result, provided the application of the candidate is forwarded by the head of the institution with the attested documents.
22. The another defence of the defendant no.1 is that CBSE only permits the change in the name of the candidate/father/mother before the declaration of class 10th result and the name should be in consistent with the school records.
CS No. 467/18 Page 9 of 12
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 that "all the applications pertaining to the correction or change of name of candidate/father/mother/date of birth be processed by the CBSE as per the directions contained in para no.170 and 171 of the judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also directed the CBSE to take immediate steps to amend its bye-laws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recoding correction/change as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it."
23. Thus, even if the plaintiff wants to get his father's name changed in the documents issued by the CBSE, still the same can be done as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "As regards, request of "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, Aadhar card, election card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. CS No. 467/18 Page 10 of 12
24. Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, even if the stand of the defendant/CBSE is considered to be correct, still, the plaintiff is entitled for the change of particulars in the certificate/mark-sheet/migration certificate issued by the CBSE.
25. 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.
26. 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 defendants to the effect that name of the father of the plaintiff is declared to be "Sarman" and not "Shravan". Both the defendants are directed to correct the name of the father of the plaintiff as "Sarman" instead of "Shravan" in all the documents issued by CBSE to the plaintiff.
CS No. 467/18 Page 11 of 12 Relief
27. The suit of the plaintiff is allowed and decreed as to declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of correction in name of father of the plaintiff as "Sarman" instead of "Shravan" in CBSE record.
27. No order as to cost.
29. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
30. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ
MANOJ KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.05.23
(Manoj Kumar)
17:04:53
+0530
SCJ-cum-RC, East/KKD
Announced in the Court
today 23rd of May, 2022
CS No. 467/18 Page 12 of 12