Bangalore District Court
Raghavendra.R S/O Rajgopal.N vs Chief Secretary on 11 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE; BANGALORE CITY
(CCH.NO 66)
PRESENT
SRI.PATIL MOHANKUMAR BHEEMANAGOUDA
B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.617/2017
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2017
Plaintiff: Raghavendra.R S/o Rajgopal.N, Aged
about 21 years, R/at No.17, Gurukrupa
Nilaya, 7th Cross, Cubbonpet,
Bengaluru.
[By Sri.Raghavendra.C, Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendants: 1. Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru.
2. The Secretary, Education department,
government of Karnataka, Vidhana
Soudha, Bengaluru.
3. The Commissioner of Public
Instructions, No.1, New public officers,
Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru.
4. The Deputy Director of Public
Instructions. Bengaluru South District,
Kalasipalyam, Bengaluru.
2 O.S.No.617/2017
5. The Director, The Karnataka State
Secondary Education examination
Board, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
6. The Director, Pre-University Board,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
7. The Vice Chancellor, Mangalore
University, Mangalore.
(D1 to D7 -exparte]
23.1.2017
Date of Institution
Nature of the suit Suit for Declaration
Date of recording 24.8.2017
of evidence
Date of Judgment 08.12.2017
Total Duration Days Months Years
15 11 00
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:
The plaintiff submits that, he is belongs to schedule caste i.e. Adi Karnataka. The plaintiff is the son of Rajagopal and Smt.Vijayalakshmi.T. At the time of admitting the plaintiff to the 3 O.S.No.617/2017 school, his parents had given instructions to mention his caste as schedule caste (Adi Karnataka) However, the school authorities have wrongly mentioned caste as Gowda Vokkaliga instead of schedule caste. The caste of the plaintiff's has been wrongly shown, because of oversight and inadvertently. The plaintiff further submits that, his father Rajgopal N belongs to schedule caste (Adi Karnataka). The plaintiff has completed his education from the school authority and colleges under the defendant Nos. 2 to 6. The plaintiff further submits that, he came to know about the wrong entry of his caste in the school records and he approached the school authorities to rectify the same. The plaintiff submits that, he even approached the defendant No.1 and requested the officials of the defendant to rectify the caste. The defendant No.1 officials directed the plaintiff to approach the civil court. Hence, cause of action arose of filing the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff prays for declaration that he belongs to schedule caste (Adi Karnataka). He has also sought for direction to the defendant officials to rectify his caste in the school records. 4 O.S.No.617/2017
3. After registering the case, suit summons was duly served on the defendants. However, they remained exparte.
4. The plaintiff in support of his contention, got examined as PW1 and he has produced the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 and closed his side.
5. Heard the argument.
6. The brief points, which arise for which arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
2. What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above point are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- This is a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got himself examined as PW1 and 5 O.S.No.617/2017 got exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. He has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint.
9. PW1 submits that, he is belongs to schedule caste i.e. Adi Karnataka. The plaintiff is the son of Rajagopal and Smt.Vijayalakshmi.T. At the time of admitting the plaintiff to the school, his parents had given instructions to mention his caste as schedule caste (Adi Karnataka) However, the school authorities have wrongly mentioned caste as Gowda Vokkaliga instead of schedule caste. The caste of the plaintiff's has been wrongly shown, because of oversight and inadvertently. PW1 further submits that, his father Rajgopal N belongs to schedule caste (Adi Karnataka). The plaintiff has completed his education from the school authority and colleges under the defendant Nos. 2 to 6. PW1 further submits that, he came to know about the wrong entry of his caste in the school records and he approached the school authorities to rectify the same. PW1 submits that, he even approached the defendant No.1 and requested the officials of the defendant to rectify the caste. The defendant No.1 officials directed the plaintiff to approach the 6 O.S.No.617/2017 civil court. Hence, cause of action arose of filing the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff prays for declaration that he belongs to schedule caste (Adi Karnataka). He has also sought for direction to the defendant officials to rectify his caste in the school records.
10. The plaintiff has field this suit for declaration that the plaintiff's belongs to schedule caste (Adi Karnataka). He further sought for directing the defendants to rectify his caste in the plaintiff's school records. When the entire pleadings are observed, the plaintiff submits that, he belongs to schedule caste (Adi Karnataka). At the time of admitting him to the school, his parents had given the information to the school authorities that, plaintiff's belongs to schedule caste (Adi Karnataka). However, the school authorities have wrongly shown his caste as Gowda- Vakaliga. However, it is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has not made the school authorities as a party to the suit. The defendants are 1) Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. The Secretary, Education department, government of Karnataka, 7 O.S.No.617/2017 Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. 2) The Commissioner of Public Instructions, No.1, New public officers, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru. 3) The Deputy Director of Public Instructions. Bengaluru South District, Kalasipalyam, Bengaluru. The plaintiff has arrayed even the director of the Karnataka state Secondary education board, The Director, Pre-university and The Vice chancellor, Mangalore University. However, the suit is basically not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties.
In para 7 of the plaint he has pleaded as follows:
"The Plaintiff has completed SSLC from the 5th Defendant Board, completed P.U.C. in Commerce from the 6th Defendant Board and also Graduation in Arts concerning to Defendant No.2 to 4 herein. The copy of the SSLC Certificate and PUC Certificate is herewith produced and marked as document No.2 & 3 respectively."
11. However, he has not impleaded the school authorities in which he has studied from 5th standard onwards.
12. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and for directions to the defendants to rectify his caste in the school records. It is his contention that, the plaintiff belongs to 8 O.S.No.617/2017 schedule caste (Adi Karnataka), but the defendants have wrongly entered his caste in the records as Gowda Vakkaliga. However, it is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has not pleaded in which school he has studied and which schools have wrongly entered his caste. The suit has been filed against the wrong persons, director of Pre-university board, Vice chancellor, Mangalore etc. They are not at all necessary parties. The plaintiff ought to have filed a suit against the school authorities in which he has studied, right from the first standard. However, the plaintiff has not impleaded the said school authorities and he has not produced the relevant records i.e. Transfer certificate and Leaving Certificate (LC) in which his caste has been wrongly mentioned. Hence, I am of the opinion that, suit is not at all maintainable and it suffers from non-joinder and mis- joinder of the parties. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action by complying the observation made above.
9 O.S.No.617/2017
13. Another important aspect to be noted is that, the plaintiff has produced several documents i.e. Ex.P1 is the certificate issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education board, Ex.P.2 is the certificate issued by the department of pre- university. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the caste certificate issued by the revenue departments. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of the legal notice. Ex.P.6 is the postal receipt and similarly rests of the documents are also with regard to correspondence between the postal authorities. The plaintiff has not at all produced the very material documents i.e. school records, in which his caste has been wrongly shown as Gowda Vakaliga instead of Adi Karnataka. Hence, on both the counts, the suit itself is not maintainable. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and for mis-joinder of parties. The school authorities are the necessary parties. They are the persons who have to come and depose, whether the parents of the plaintiff had given correct information about the caste. Hence, for all these reasons, suit itself is not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the plaintiff to file fresh suit by impleading all the necessary 10 O.S.No.617/2017 parties and also by producing relevant documents. Hence, for all these reasons, I am of the opinion that, suit itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative'.
14. Point No:2: In view of my findings above point, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
The office is directed to return the original documents to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is at liberty to file fresh suit, after complying the observations made in the judgment.
Draw decree accordingly.
---
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of December, 2017).
(PATIL MOHANKUMAR BHEEMANAGOUDA) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.11 O.S.No.617/2017
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Raghavendra.R LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:
- Nil -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : SSCL Marks card Ex.P.2 : PUC Marks card Ex.P.3 : Caste certificate of PW1's father Ex.P.4 : Caste certificate of PW1's brother Ex.P.5 : Notice Ex.P.6 : Postal receipts Ex.P.7 to 18 : correspondence letters Ex.P.19 : postal acknowledgement
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
- Nil -
(PATIL MOHANKUMAR BHEEMANAGOUDA) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
12 O.S.No.617/2017
Dt:11/12/2017
Pltf : Sri.VR.
Def : Ex-PARTE
Judgment.
Judgment pronounced in the open court, vide separately ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
The office is directed to return the original documents to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is at liberty to file fresh suit, after complying the observations made in the judgment.
Draw decree accordingly.
(PATIL MOHANKUMAR BHEEMANAGOUDA) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.13 O.S.No.617/2017