Delhi District Court
Aakash Sehrawat vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 8 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDDHARTHA MALIK: ACJcum
CCcumARC (SOUTHWEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW
DELHI.
C.S No: 152/18
IN THE MATTER OF
Aakash Sehrawat
S/o Sh. Rohtash Sehrawat
R/o WZ-104D, Palam Village,
New Delhi-110045.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Central Board of Secondary Education
(Through its Chairman/ Incharge)
Shiksha Kendra, 2-Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
2. The New Delhi Convent Sr. Sec. School,
Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045.
....Defendants
Date of Institution : 01.02.2018
Date of pronouncing judgment : 08.03.2021
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I will dispose off the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by him against the defendants with regard to name of father of the plaintiff.
12. Brief case of plaintiff as per plaint is that defendant no.1 is a board of education for public and private schools, under the Union of India. The defendant no.2 is a private school duly affiliated by defendant no.1.
3. Plaintiff avers that he was a student of defendant no.2 during 20082013. At the time of his admission in school of defendant no.2, plaintiff's parents submitted all the required documents to defendant no.2 alongwith the ID proofs of his father wherein the father's name of plaintiff is Rohtash Sehrawat and not Rohtas. In every ID proof, the father's name of plaintiff is Rohtash Sehrawat and not Rohtas.
4. Plaintiff further avers that due to typographical mistakes, the name of his father is reflecting as Rohtash and not Rohtash Sehrawat in the records of defendant no.1 & 2 in the class 10th pass certificate. On the contrary, the class 12 th certificate bears the correct name of the father of the plaintiff.
5. According to plaintiff, father of plaintiff approached defendant no. 2 a number of times to rectify the mistake in name in 10th class records but he was asked to approach defendant no.1 stating that defendant no.1 is the appropriate authority in that respect and to make necessary correction done by defendant no.1 in 10th class pass certificate of the plaintiff issued by defendant no.1.
26. Further, it is averred that father of plaintiff again approached the defendant no.1 to get the above stated mistake of name rectified & he was asked to bring an affidavit on stamp paper of Rs 10/ to the effect that Mr. Rohtash Sehrawat and Rohtas is one and same person and he is father of plaintiff. Accordingly, the said formality was done by his father. His father again went to defendant no.1 alongwith all the relevant document but defendant no.1 asked him to get published an publication/ advertismet in this regard in official gazette of India. As per the instruction of defendant no.1, plaintiff got published a publication in Official gazette of India, Saturday, November 18 November 24, 2017. [Annexure D & E (collectively)].
7. Again, plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 after fulfilling the above stated requirement but defendant no.1 refused to entertain requests of father of plaintiff of making alteration in their records in respect of father's name of plaintiff despite the fact that plaintiff gave all the proofs to the defendants in this regard. Thus, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with following prayers:
(a) to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendants thereby declaring the father's name of plaintiff to be Rohtash Sehrawat;
(b).pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make rectification in its records in respect of father's name of the plaintiff as Rohtash Sehrawat instead of Rohtas and 3 further direct defendant no.1 to reissue the corrected 10 th class pass certificate of the plaintiff with his father's name correction and further direct the defendant no.1 & 2 to make changes in respect of father's name of the plaintiff from Rohtash Sehrawat to Rohtas in upcoming records;
8. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 / CBSE wherein it was contended that Central Board of Secondary Education (herein after referred to as CBSE) is a National Board of School Education is an autonomous and self finance body under the Ministry of Home Resource Development (HRD), Govt. of India and controlled by its Secretary.
9. It was further contended that the present suit is not covered under the Examination byelaws of CBSE/ D1 and the relief sought by the plaintiff is denied in entirety in the interest of justice, therefore, the present suit is liable to be rejected U/o 7 rule 11 CPC. It is further submitted that sometime the change in the name at a later stage can change the identity of the person which can be fatal for the society. It is further submitted that CBSE is not at all concerned with the details of other documents. CBSE prepares the certificate/s only on the basis of the records provided by the concerned school through list of Candidate/s affiliated with CBSE. It is further submitted that the relief sought by the plaintiff is denied being illegal, after thought, meritless and without any substance, thus, is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is prayed by 4 defendant no.1 that the present suit be dismissed.
10. Pursuant to service of summons, Sh. Vijay Kumar, Teacher in defendant no.2 School has appeared on 28.03.2018. Defendant no.2 was granted time for filing written statement within 15 days. Thereafter, defendant no.2 stopped appearing and was accordingly proceeded exparte vide order dt. 31.05.2018.
11. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 09.08.2018:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether the present suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD.
4. Relief.
12. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A alongwith following documents:
1. Ex. PW1/A (OSR) & Ex. PW1/B (OSR): Copies of Voter card and Aadhar Card.
2. Ex. PW1/C (OSR): Copy of 10th class marksheet certificate of plaintiff.
3. Ex. PW1/D (OSR): Copy of 12th class pass certificate of 5 plaintiff.
4. Ex. PW1/E: Attested copy of admission form issued by defendant no.2 to the plaintiff.
5. Ex. PW1/ F: Attested copy of withdrawal register issued by defendant no.2 to the plaintiff.
6. Ex. PW1/G (OSR): Copy of 9th class report book of plaintiff.
7. Ex. PW1/H: Original affidavit of stamp paper of plaintiff.
8. Ex. PW1/I: Original application dated 31/10/2017 (although wrongly mentioned as 30.10.2017 in his affidavit).
9. Ex. PW1/J: Original newspaper Veer Arjun dt. 03.11.2017.
10. Ex. PW1/K: Original newspaper The Indian Express dated 15.02.2017.
11. Mark A: Copy of publication in official gazette of India English dt. 18.11.2017 to 24.11.2017 (although mentioned as ExPW1/L in her affidavit).
13. PW1 was duly cross examined by counsel for defendant no.1. Thereafter, P.E was closed vide order dt. 10.02.2020.
14. It was submitted by counsel for defendant no.1 defendant no.1 was not willing to lead any evidence. Accordingly, D.E was closed vide order dt. 10.02.2020.
615. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of the parties. The plaintiff has argued that the name of his father has been recorded incorrectly by CBSE in class 10 th certificate as is clear from all the other documents including the class 12th certificate issued by CBSE itself. It is further argued that the entire life of the plaintiff shall be adversely affected by the said mistake in the certificate and a correction thereof shall not cause any prejudice to the defendant. Defendant no.1/ CBSE has argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as he did not approach CBSE seeking the necessary correction within one year of publication of result as required under byelaw 69.1 of CBSE.
16. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the record of the present case. My issue wise findings, are as follows :-
17. Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP.
17.1. Onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. On his part, the plaintiff has relied upon the voter I card, Aadhar card, school admission form of 2008, gazette notification etc., all of which clearly show the name of father of plaintiff as Rohtash Sehrawat and not as Rohtas alone. It is important to note that class 12 th certificate issued by CBSE itself shows the name of the father of plaintiff as Rohtash Sehrawat. The only document which records the name of father of plaintiff as Rohtas is the class 10 th certificate 7 for which the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration and injunction.
17.2. It is further important to note that the CBSE has not disputed the fact that the name of the father of plaintiff is Rohtash Sehrawat and not merely Rohtas. There is no dispute to the identity of either the plaintiff or his father. The only objection of CBSE is a technical objection that the request for change in name or surname should have been made within one year of the publication of result.
17.3. The CBSE has relied upon examination bye-laws of CBSE which mandate a request for change / correction in name to be made within one year of declaration of result. In this regard, it is noted that the said bye-laws have been amended vide notification dt. 25.06.2015 and after such notification, the period of one year has been prescribed for making a request for change. Prior to the amendment in 2015, the bye-laws of CBSE provided for a period of 10 years from the date of issue of the concerned document. In the present case, the class 10th certificate of the plaintiff was issued in the year 2011 and therefore, the bye-laws applicable in 2011 shall govern the rights of the plaintiff. A subsequent amendment in 2015 can not take away the right accrued in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2011.
17.4. As the bye-laws applicable in 2011 allowed the plaintiff to seek change / correction in the name of his father within a period of 10 years from the date of issuance of class 10 th certificate, the plaintiff is entitled to such a relief on this ground itself.
817.5. Even otherwise, the case of the plaintiff does not fall in the category of change of name/ father's name. Rather, the case of the plaintiff should be considered under the category of correction of factual error in the surname of father of the plaintiff covered under by rule 69.1(ii).
17.6 At this stage, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Khusboo Kaushik (minor ) through her father vs. CBSE WP ( C) 1672/2017 dt. 23.05.2017, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has clearly observed that factual correction of name of the father of the petitioner can not be considered as change in name. The name of a person as mentioned in all other documents except CBSE documents shall only make a case for correction of name in the documents of CBSE rather than a change of name which would require substitution of a name which is not present in any other document including the document issued by CBSE.
17.7. In the aforesaid judgment itself, Hon'ble High Court granted the relief of correction of surname of father of the petitioner as CBSE had not disputed the identity of either the petitioner or her father. In the present case also, the identity of the plaintiff or his father is not in dispute and the plaintiff is seeking correction in the surname of father of the plaintiff to make it consistent across all the documents issued by various authorities.
17.8. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of Hon' ble High Court of Delhi in Imran Ali Khan vs. CBSE dt. 06.02.2019 9 wherein Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that strict and restrictive approach in correction of name in a certificate issued by CBSE can not be justified only on the ground of administrative inconvenience. In the present case also, the sole objection of CBSE relates to an administrative technicality for which a substantive right of the plaintiff is being denied.
17.9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that his father's name is Rohtash Sehrawat qua the documents issued by CBSE. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
18. Issue No. 2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
18.1. Onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. In view of discussion regarding issue no.1, the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of mandatory injunction and accordingly, CBSE is directed to issue a fresh certificate in the name of the plaintiff with the correct name of his father as Rohtash Sehrawat. This issue is decided accordingly.
19. Issue No.3. Whether the present suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD.
19.1. Onus to prove the said issue was upon the defendant. The said issue has already been discussed in issue no.1. The amended bye-laws of CBSE as amended in 2015 do not oust the 10 claim of the plaintiff on the technicality of limitation. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
20. Issue No. 3: Relief:-
20.1 In view of my finding on issue no. 1 to 3 hereinabove, the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for.
21. No order as to costs.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Siddhartha Malik) today i.e on 08.03.2021 ACJ/CCJ/ARC:South West District Dwarka Courts: New Delhi.
11