Delhi District Court
Soniya Dagur vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 11 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI, ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JSCC-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS SCJ : 53/2019
CNR NO. DLSW030000382019
Soniya Dagur
d/o Sh. Raj Kumar
Permanent resident of Village Raghav Gharhi,
Post Shalpur, Block Tapal, Tehsil Khair, Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh-202141
Currently residing at C2/31, Gold Croft Society,
Plot no. 4, Sector-11,
Dwarka, Delhi - 110075.
........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Central Board of Secondary Education
Through Secretary
Siksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, New Delhi
2. MBS International School
Through its Principal
Sector-11, Dwarka,
New Delhi- 110043. ..........Defendants
Date of institution : 08.01.2019
Arguments heard on : 23.12.2020
Date of decision : 11.01.2021
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that Sh. Raj Kumar and Smt Virmati are the parents of the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to correct all the records of the plaintiff to the extent that the names of her parents are Sh. Raj Kumar and Smt Virmati and also directing defendant no.1 to issue Class X grade-sheet cum CS No. 53/19 Page no. 1/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
certificate of performance to the plaintiff showing Sh. Raj Kumar and Smt Virmati as her parents. The suit was initially filed by the plaintiff through her next friend, that is, her brother-in-law Lt. Colonel Shiv Kumar Singh. During the trial of the case, the plaintiff attained majority and she contested the suit in her personal capacity. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are:− 1 It is stated that the plaintiff is the daughter of Shri Raj Kumar and Smt. Virmati who are the residents of Village Raghav Gharhi, Post Shalpur, Block Tapal, Tehsil Khair, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that the ration card of Shri Raj Kumar Singh and the school leaving certificate of the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff and Shri Raj Kumar Singh are daughter-father. It is stated that the plaintiff came to Delhi and started residing with her sister - Smt. Poonam Singh and her brother-in- law - Lt Colonel Shiv Kumar Singh at the Dwarka address. It is stated that the sister and brother-in-law of the plaintiff got her admitted in defendant no. 2 school/MBS International School, Sector-11, Dwarka in the year 2013 in VII standard. It is stated that at the time of admission of the plaintiff, the school leaving certificate of the plaintiff was submitted to the defendant no.2, wherein the parentage of the plaintiff is clearly mentioned. It is stated that in the year 2015 when the defendant no. 2 again demanded the school leaving certificate, the same was again obtained by the plaintiff and submitted to the defendant no.2. It is stated that at the time of admission of the plaintiff, the names of her sister and brother-in- law, that is, Smt. Poonam Singh and Lt Colonel Shiv Kumar Singh were erroneously entered as the name of the parents of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff completed X standard in the year 2017 with roll number 824 9504 and registration number D117/75945/0028 from defendant no.2 and she was issued grade sheet cum certificate of performance by defendant no.1 in which her father's name is mentioned as 'Shiv Kumar Singh' instead of 'Raj Kumar' and the name of her mother is mentioned as 'Poonam Singh' instead of 'Virmati'. It is stated that the plaintiff approached defendant no.2, through Smt. Poonam Singh and Lt Colonel Shiv Kumar Singh, and brought the errors in its knowledge but she was asked to give an application for rectification of the same. It is stated that on 15.09.2018 the CS No. 53/19 Page no. 2/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
plaintiff, through her father, gave an application dated 13.09.2018 to defendant no.1 through defendant no. 2 and requested for correction in the names in the said certificate and record. It is stated that on receipt of the said application, defendant no.2 informed the plaintiff that she will have to get an order from the Court for changes in the names. It is stated that the plaintiff also sent a legal notice through her advocate on 15.12.2018 to the defendants and requested them to correct the names in her documents. It is stated that defendant no.1 replied that there is a five- year limitation for making changes in the parentage but did not make any corrections. Hence, this suit.
2 Defendant no. 1/CBSE filed a written statement stating that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the amended rule 69.1(i) of the Examination Bye- Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education, the amended Office Order dated 06.02.2015, the notification dated 26.06.2015 and circular bearing no. CBSE/Coord/AS(C) /112576 dated 10.11.2017 which provide that an application for changes in name or surname of candidates may be granted, provided the change has been admitted before the publication of results of the candidate. It is further submitted that no change in name/surname can be allowed once recorded in the Board's record, however, corrections in the name to the extent of corrections in spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the candidate's name/surname, father's name/mother's name or guardian's name may be allowed to make it consistent with what is given in the list of candidates submitted by the school. It is submitted that the rules clearly provide that in no case correction shall include alteration, addition, deletion to make it different except as mentioned in the list of candidates or the school record.
3 Defendant no. 2/school filed a written statement stating that the suit is liable to be dismissed since the plaintiff/her relatives had themselves filled the school admission form and had intentionally filled the name of mother and father as Smt. Poonam Singh and Lt Colonel Shiv Kumar Singh, respectively. It is submitted that Lt Colonel Shiv Kumar Singh used to visit the parents-teacher meeting as the father of the plaintiff on every occasion and he also used to sign all the school records. It CS No. 53/19 Page no. 3/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
is submitted that no school leaving certificate was ever provided by the plaintiff to defendant no.2. It is further submitted that ration card Aadhaar card or school leaving certificate are not the documents to prove the parentage of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the grade sheet cum certificate of performance contained only those details which were provided and cross-checked by the plaintiff herself. 4 Vide order dated 12.03.2019 three issues were framed:
"(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed for ? (OPP)
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)
(iii) Relief."
5 In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses in evidence:
5.1 PW-1/Soniya Dagur entered witness box on 26.07.2019 and tendered her affidavit Ex PW-1/A in evidence. Ex. PW-1/A reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. It also states that the plaintiff has completed XII standard in the year 2019 and has attained majority on 22.06.2019. She relied on a copy of her Aadhaar Card as Mark A, her school leaving certificate as Ex PW-1/2, copy of the legal notice to defendants as Ex PW1/3 and its reply by defendant no.1 as Ex PW1/4.
In her cross-examination, she stated that she has not got the change in the names of her parents published in the gazette.
5.2 PW-2/Smt. Virmati entered witness box on 26.07.2019 and tendered her affidavit Ex PW-2/A in evidence. Ex. PW-2/A mentions that the plaintiff was born at home and has now attained majority on 22.06.2019. It mentions that she is the mother of the plaintiff and resides at Uttar Pradesh while the plaintiff resides at Dwarka with Smt Poonam Singh and Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh. It mentions that the plaintiff had completed VII standard from M.D. Public Junior High School, Shalpur, Aligarh and was later sent to Delhi for better education. She relied on a copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex PW-2/1 and a copy of ration card as Ex PW2/3. 5.3 PW-3/Sh. Raj Kumar entered witness box on 26.07.2019 and tendered his affidavit Ex PW-3/A in evidence. Ex. PW-3/A reiterates the facts mentioned in the CS No. 53/19 Page no. 4/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
plaint. It also mentions that he is the father of the plaintiff and resides at Uttar Pradesh while the plaintiff resides at Dwarka with Smt Poonam Singh and Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh. It also mentions that the plaintiff had completed VII standard from M.D. Public Junior High School, Shalpur, Aligarh and was later sent to Delhi for better education. He relied on a copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW-3/1 and a copy of ration card already Ex. PW-2/3.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not got the change in the names of plaintiff's parents published in the gazette. 5.4 PW-4/Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh, entered witness box on 26.07.2019 and tendered his affidavit Ex PW-4/A in evidence. Ex. PW-4/A reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He relied on a copy of his driving licence as Ex. PW-4/1 and a copy of the letter dated 13.08.2020 as Ex. PW-4/2.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he had filled the admission form and other documents of the plaintiff at the time of her admission. He stated that he came to know of the changes in the name of the parents of the plaintiff in the educational documents when she completed X standard in the year 2017. He stated that he never approached CBSE for the change in the parentage of the plaintiff in the educational documents. He stated that he has not got the change in the names of plaintiff's parents published in the gazette. He denied that he intentionally entered his name and his wife's name as the parents of the plaintiff. He admitted that he used to attend the PTMs in the school. He stated that he entered his name and his wife's name because there was no column for entering the names of the local guardian. He stated that he presumed that when he will submit the transfer certificate, the school will rectify the records. He admitted that at the time of admission of the plaintiff, he did not furnish transfer certificate of the plaintiff in the school. He added that he informed the school that he will furnish transfer certificate later but inadvertently forgot to furnish the transfer certificate and other school records to defendant no.2. Later when he again entered the witness box, he stated that he had supplied the transfer certificate to the school. 6 Defendant no.1 did not lead any evidence.
CS No. 53/19 Page no. 5/14Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
7 Defendant no.2 examined one witness in its support:
7.1 D2W1/Sh. Atul Wadhawan, Principal, MBS International School, entered witness box on 26.09.2019 and tendered his affidavit Ex D2W1/A in evidence. Ex.
D2W1/A reiterates the same facts as mentioned in the written statement of defendant no.2. He relied on a copy of his identity card as Ex D2W1/1, a copy of the resolution in his favour Ex D2W1/2 and copies of admission form of the plaintiff as Ex D2W1/3.
In his cross-examination, he stated that for admissions in classes above class-I, the parents are asked to submit transfer certificate of the child. He stated that the plaintiff's parents may have requested for 1-2 months to furnish transfer certificate since it was a state transfer case. He stated that after the entries were made in the admission withdrawal register of the school, the fact was ignored as to whether the parents have submitted the transfer certificate of the plaintiff or not. He stated that a photocopy of the transfer certificate was received by the school on 15.09.18 along with the letter dated 13.09.2018. He stated that till that time the plaintiff had already passed 10th standard from the school. He relied on a copy of 10th standard grade sheet cum certificate of performance of the plaintiff as Ex D2W1/4. He stated that the school came to know about the discrepancies in the parentage of the plaintiff after receiving the letter dated 13.09.2018. He stated that the school has no objection if the parentage of the plaintiff is changed by the court. 8 I have heard the parties and have perused the record.
9 Issue wise findings are as under:-
"(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed for ? (OPP)"
9.1.1 At the outset it may be noted that the defendants have not denied that the parents of the plaintiff are Shri Raj Kumar and Smt. Virmati. The stand of defendant no.1 in this regard is clear from its written statement wherein defendant no.1 has admitted the averments pertaining to the parentage of the plaintiff. As regards defendant no.2, its own witness-D2W1 has stated in his cross-examination that he has no objection if the parentage of the plaintiff is CS No. 53/19 Page no. 6/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
changed by the Court.
9.1.2 This is further clear from the examination and cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. None of the plaintiff's witnesses has been put any suggestion to the effect that the parents of the plaintiff are not Shri Raj Kumar and Smt. Virmati. The plaintiff's witnesses have also relied on a number of documents like ration card, Aadhaar card, school leaving certificate to which no objection was put by either of the defendants. 9.1.3 The ration card of Sh. Raj Kumar Ex PW2/3 shows that Smt Virmati is his wife and Kumari Soniya is his daughter. The school leaving certificate Ex PW1/2 also reflects that the parents of the plaintiff are Smt Virmati and Shri Raj Kumar. All the plaintiff's witnesses have clearly deposed that the mother of the plaintiff is Smt Virmati and that her father is Sh. Raj Kumar. This assertion of the plaintiff's witnesses has not been rebutted by the defendants and hence it is clear that the parties are at an admitted position that the mother of the plaintiff is Smt Virmati and her father is Sh. Raj Kumar .
In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is declared that Sh Raj Kumar is the father of the plaintiff/Soniya Dagur and that Smt Virmati is the mother of the plaintiff.
"(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)"
9.2.1 A bare reading of the pleadings as well as the testimonies of the witnesses will show that the plaintiff has admitted that there was an error on her side and it was due to her mistake/the mistake of her brother-in-law that the names of her parents were recorded incorrectly in the record of defendant no.2 and this same incorrect record was forwarded by defendant no. 2 to defendant no.1. Although the plaintiff had tried to defend herself by stating that Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh had submitted her transfer certificate with the CS No. 53/19 Page no. 7/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
defendant no.2, but Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh admitted (as PW4) that he did not submit any transfer certificate at the time of admission of the plaintiff. He also admitted that he assumed that the school/defendant no.2 will correct the parentage when he will submit the transfer certificate but inadvertently he forgot to furnish the same to defendant no.2 later on also.
Hence, there is no doubt that the defendants are not at fault for the incorrect recording of the parentage of the plaintiff. 9.2.2 Coming to the rules applicable to changes/correction in names of the parents of the candidate, Bye-law 69.1(i) and (ii) of Central Board of Secondary Education Bye-laws are relevant in this regard:
"69.1(i) Applications regarding changes in name or surname of candidates may be considered, provided the changes have been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate. 69.1(ii) Correction in name to the extent of correction in spelling errors, factual typographical errors in the Candidate's name/Surname, Father's name/Mother's name or Guardian's name to make it consistent with what is given in the school record or list of candidates (LOC) submitted by the school may be made.
Application for correction in name of Candidate/Father's/Mother's/Guardian's name will be considered only within five years of the date of declaration of result provided the application of the candidate is forwarded by the Head of Institution with the following attested documents:......."
9.2.3 Now the moot question before this Court is whether the request of the plaintiff to replace the names of 'Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh' and 'Smt Poonam Singh' with the names of 'Shri Raj Kumar' and 'Smt Virmati' are "changes in names" or "correction of names."
The definition of 'correction' mentioned in Rule 69.1(ii) is very restrictive. It applies only to cases where there are spelling mistakes or factual typographical errors and is further limited only to those cases where CS No. 53/19 Page no. 8/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
correction is sought to make it consistent with the school record. The case of the plaintiff is not covered under Rule 69.1(ii).
However, the case of the plaintiff also does not fall within the meaning of 'change' because the plaintiff does not want to change the names of her parents but wants to rectify the record of the defendants to incorporate the correct names of her parents.
As observed earlier, there is no dispute that the parents of the plaintiff are Shri Raj Kumar and Smt Virmati. It is nobody's case that except Shri Raj Kumar and Smt Virmati, anyone has ever been the father or the mother of the plaintiff at any point of time. It is true that Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh put his name and the name of his wife as the parents of the plaintiff, but this is precisely the error which the plaintiff wants to be rectified. Lt Col Shiv Kumar Singh/PW4 has clearly stated that he is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and his wife Smt Poonam is the real sister of the plaintiff. The ration card of Sh. Raj Kumar Ex PW2/3 also shows that Smt Poonam is the daughter of Shri Raj Kumar and sister of the plaintiff. There is no question as to the identity of the plaintiff. Yet she is unable to have the errors in the names of her parents rectified because her case is covered by neither 69.1(i) nor 69.1(ii) of the CBSE Bye-Laws.
9.2.4 At this stage, reference may be had to judgment in the case of Imranalikhan v.Central Board of Secondary Education and Another cited at 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6980 wherein an LPA had been filed seeking correction of the mother's name of Ms. Filza Khan, appearing in the records of the CBSE as "Kiran Khan" to "Fakiha Khan. In the said case at the time of admission of Ms. Filza Khan in Class-I with the school, the name of her mother was recorded as Ms. Kiran Khan. This continued to remain so, over the years and these particulars came to be furnished by the school to the CBSE. Resultantly, in the grade sheet-cum-certificate of performance of All India Secondary School Examination-2015 of Ms. Filza Khan, her mother's name came to be mentioned "Kiran Khan". Consequently, the petitioner CS No. 53/19 Page no. 9/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
made an application to the school and the CBSE but the CBSE communicated that as per the amended Rule 69.1(i) the request could not be allowed. In this factual matrix, while allowing the correction in the name, it was observed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"5. Having considered the diverse aspects and the admitted factual conspectus on record, we find, the case in hand, is not a case of any change of name, but, a mere correction in the mother's name of the child Ms. Filza Khan. Apparently, an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the mother's nickname "Ms. Kiran Khan" in the admission form in the year 2005, got transmitted by the respondent No. 2 school to the respondent No. 1 Board. The application made by the petitioner was not for any change of name, but, for correction of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the mother in the admission form as "Kiran Khan" instead of "Fakiha Khan", which fact, undisputedly, finds support from the birth certificate dated 17.12.02, copy whereof forms part of the record as Annexure-P1. This birth certificate clearly mentions that Ms. Filza Khan was born to the petitioner and Ms. Fakiha Khan. The applicant has placed on record other documents, such as the educational certificates of the mother Fakiha Khan, her passport etc., which show that her name always was Fakiha Khan. Thus, it is not a case of change of name of the mother to Kiran Khan, from Fakiha Khan, post the filling up of the examination form of the appellant's daughter. Pertinently, even in the documents relating to the daughter of the appellant Filza Khan, such as her Birth Certificate, the name of the mother is recorded as "Fakiha Khan" and not "Kiran Khan". Thus, the case in hand is certainly not a case of change of name as contemplated under Rule 69.1(i). It is also not a case of correction in spelling errors and factual typographical errors as contemplated under Rule 69.1(ii). The case in hand is completely founded on the premise of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the mother in the admission form, which was filled way back in the year 2005 at the time of admission of the child in class-I. Such a case is neither covered under Rule 69.1(i), nor Rule 69.1(ii)..."
6. We feel, the respondent No. 1 Board has been too CS No. 53/19 Page no. 10/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
recalcitrant in a case of the kind in hand inspite of the clear and specific observations made by the Co-ordinate bench of this in Mazhar Saleem's case...
...8. The adoption of a strict and restrictive approach in the matter of change or correction of name of the candidate or his/her parents, in the certificates issued by the respondent No. 1, cannot be justified on the foundation that such changes, when made later, may be exploited to mislead all concerned about the identity of the candidate. Such a strict and restrictive approach cannot be justified merely on the ground of some administrative inconvenience. After all, respondent No. 1 charges the fee to cover its costs for undertaking such an exercise."
(Emphasis supplied) Similarly, in the present case, none of the defendants has raised any concern over the identity of the plaintiff. The names of the parents of the plaintiff have always been "Shri Raj Kumar" and "Smt Virmati". The plaintiff merely wants a correction be done in her records to incorporate the actual names of her parents.
9.2.5 Further, in the case of Hemant Nimesh vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Another cited at 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8800, Hon'ble Delhi High Court had observed :
"5. In all such cases, the attempt of the court, in the first instance, is to ascertain whether the request of the candidate is for "change" in name or "correction" in name. Thereafter, the court is required to adopt a common sense approach. Where the records indicate that the request of the candidate is genuine, technical considerations ought not to stand in the way of the Court granting relief as sought.
...7 . The CBSE has framed clear cut guidelines governing applications for change, and correction of name, and advisedly so, at times, the name of the student, or her or his parents, becomes an identity marker, and any ambiguity therein may have serious consequences at a later stage. In cases where there, CS No. 53/19 Page no. 11/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
therefore, appears to be any degree of ambiguity, even slight, regarding the claim, for change of the name, made by the candidate herself/himself, or her/his parent, courts are required to adopt a circumspect approach and cannot be unruly lenient 8 . Having said that, however, where the records reveals that the prayer for change of name is genuine, the court cannot be hypertechnical in broaching the issue. This is probably best reflected in a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Imran Ali Khan v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6980."
(Emphasis supplied) 9.2.6 None of the defendants have raised any apprehension that the plaintiff has moved the application for rectification of names for any malafide motive. The difficulty of the plaintiff is genuine. There has been a mistake on her end due to which the errors have crept into her records but a mistake, howsoever gross, cannot disentitle her to the right to pursue higher education and the right to pursue a career. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a young girl's future could be jeopardized merely due to a mistake in filling a form. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the plaintiff had come from a village in Uttar Pradesh to Delhi in the hope of getting a better education. It would not be just to perpetuate her mistake resulting in life- long hardships to her. Reliance is also placed in the case of Khushbu Kaushik (Minor) thr. Her Father Lt. Col. Rajesh Chandra Kaushik vs Central Board of Secondary Education Through its Chairman & ors. cited at 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8492 wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"19. So long as the identity of the Petitioner is clear and there is no doubt as to the name and identity of her parents, merely abbreviated recordal or mistake in recordal of the names, cannot be perpetuated, resulting in inconvenience and hardship to the Petitioner. The CBSE does not dispute the identity of the CS No. 53/19 Page no. 12/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
father or of the Petitioner. The CBSE merely submits that it did not commit any mistake and relied upon the LOC (list of candidates) and the form submitted by the school...".
9.2.7 There is no doubt as to the name and identity of the plaintiff. The CBSE/defendant no.1 has not disputed the identity of the parents of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no reason why this Court should approach a hyper-technical approach which defeats the very purpose for which CBSE has been established. In its own words (https://cbse.nic.in/newsite/ aboutCbse.html), the main objectives of CBSE are "To define appropriate approaches of academic activities to provide stress free, child centered and holistic education to all children without compromising on quality", "To adapt and innovate methods to achieve academic excellence in conformity with psychological, pedagogical and social principles" and "To propose plans to achieve quality benchmarks in school education consistent with the National goals"
9.2.8. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Defendant no. 1 is directed to issue a corrected Secondary School Examination Grade cum Performance Certificate to the plaintiff reflecting the name of her father as 'Raj Kumar' and the name of her mother as 'Virmati'. The same be done within six weeks. Defendant no. 2 is also directed to rectify its records to the same effect.
"(iii) Relief"
It has come on record that the plaintiff has also cleared XII standard during the trial of this case. If the Secondary School Examination Grade cum Performance Certificate of the plaintiff is rectified but her Senior Secondary School Examination Grade cum Performance Certificate is not corrected, the same will result in absurdity. Accordingly, defendant no. 1 is directed to CS No. 53/19 Page no. 13/14 Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.
issue a corrected Senior Secondary School Examination Grade cum Performance Certificate to the plaintiff reflecting the name of her father as 'Raj Kumar' and the name of her mother as 'Virmati'. The plaintiff will supply the necessary details of her XII standard registration number and roll number to CBSE. Defendant no. 1 will do the needful within six weeks of receipt of the information.
In view of the above-noted findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
RICHA Digitally signed
by RICHA
GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2021.01.11
SOLANKI 16:27:47 +05'30'
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
on 11th January 2021 JSCC/ASCJ/GJ:S-W:
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS No. 53/19 Page no. 14/14
Soniya Dagur v CBSE and anr.