Delhi District Court
Arjun Rawat vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 16 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-03 (EAST DISTRICT), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 32/22
In the matter of: -
ARJUN RAWAT,
S/O LATE COL. SANJAY RAWAT,
B-703, NPSC SOCIETY,
SECTOR-2, PLOT -5, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075 ................ Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION(CBSE)
(THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN),
SHIKHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE
PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092 ..............Respondent
Appeal filed on : 02.11.2022
Arguments heard on :20.07.2023
Judgment pronounced on : 16.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff is in appeal against judgment and decree dt. 27.09.2022 of Ld. Trial Court whereby and where under his suit was dismissed. Parties shall RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 1/16 be referred to in this judgment as per their ranks before Ld. Trial Court.
2. Appellant/ plaintiff's case:
A). The appellant/plaintiff was born to father Shri Sanjay Rawat and Mother Ms. Alka Rawat in Dibrugarh, Assam on 27.12.1990. At that time, the father of the appellant was serving as a captain in the Indian Army and was posted in Dibrugarh, Assam. The Birth certificate was issued by Municipal Board, Dibrugarh and a birth a certificate was issued by Military Hospital Dinjain.
B) On coming of age in June, 1995 the appellant was admitted to St. Josephs Boys' School, Khadki, Pune, Maharashtra-411003 as the father of appellant was posted at Khadki Cantonment then. At the time of admission, the date of birth of appellant was inadvertently recorded as 27.06.1991 in the aforementioned school records.
C) The above mention wrong date of birth 27.06.1991 got carried forward as such in record of every subsequent school thereafter. The secondary school examination (class X) result reflected the same wrong date of birth from the records of Sunflag School, Bhandara Road, Warthi, Bhandara, Maharashtra, from where appellant passed the Secondary School Examination (class X) in the year 2006.
D) The father (now deceased) of the appellant was a disabled soldier who retired from the Indian Army in the year 2016. The father of the appellant approached the Respondent-CBSE in May 2017, to rectify the date of birth of appellant in the records of CBSE. The said request of appellant to rectify the date of birth in the records was dismissed by CBSE at the threshold itself on the ground that such requests are only entertained within a year of passing out of the candidates. The respondent's office advised to father of appellant to seek the RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 2/16 remedy from court as per law. Hence, the suit was filed with a following prayers.
a) To declare 27.12.1990 as date of birth of plaintiff.
b) To pass a mandatory injunction directing the respondent/CBSE to change the date of birth of petitioner in their records to 27.12.1990.
c) To direct CBSE to provide fresh Class-X Marks Sheet to the plaintiff with the rectified date of birth.
d) To pass any such other order as the court deem fit and proper.
3. Respondent/ defendant CBSE filed its written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that suit of the plaintiff is not tenable in law in view of amended rule 69.2 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Examination byelaws. It is contended by the defendant that as per rule 69.2 (iv) the application for correction in the date of birth duly forwarded by head of the school alongwith documents mentioned in the byelaws 69.2 (iii) shall be entertained by the board only within one year of the date of declaration of result and no correct whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of one year. Defendant also contended that present suit has no cause of action, hence, same is liable to be dismissed u/o 7 rule 11 CPC. Defendant denied all other averments as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Appellant / plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondent/ defendant wherein the plaintiff/ appellant reiterated its averments as set out in the plaint and denied contents of written statement.
5. Ld. Trial Court framed following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for?RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 3/16
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove his case, appellant/ plaintiff examined only himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon following documents:
1. The copy of date of birth of PW-1 issued by Municipal Board, Dibrugarh, Assam in Ex. PW1/A.
2. The copy of date of birth certificate issued by hospital is marked as MarkA.
3. The copy of mark sheet of class X issued on 27.05.2006 Ex. PW1/C.
4. Copy of disability certificate of his father col. Sanjay Rawat is marked as Mark-B. Vide order dated 10.02.2020, PW-2 Col. Sanjay Rawat was dropped from the list of witnesses.
Evidence of plaintiff was closed on 28.03.20222.
The defendant has not led his evidence in his defence and the DE was closed on 28.03.2022.
7. The court of ld. Sr. Civil Judge-cum-rent controller, East, KKD Delhi dismissed the suit of the the appellant vide judgment dated 27.09.2022. Aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 27.09.2022, passed by Ld. Sr. Civil Judge-cum-rent controller, East, KKD Delhi, the appellant has filed the present RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 4/16 appeal on the following grounds:
a) The Ld. Trial Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff has not complied with the procedural requirement as relied by the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff preferred the suit for mandatory injunction and declaration in the year 2017 after the request of appellant for the said change in his date of birth was turned down by respondent-CBSE.
b) The ld. Trial Court failed to consider that when appellant/ plaintiff preferred the application, such conditions as specified by the Hon'ble Apex Court were not yet mandatory or even prescribed.
c) The ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the birth certificate placed on record was prepared just before filing of the present petition and earlier birth certificate was not produced by the plaintiff.
d) Ld. Trial court erred in not appreciating that the Indian Evidence Act 1872 lays down that there is legal presumption in relation to the public documents which unless rebutted cannot be put to doubt. It is noteworthy that the respondent has admitted the said birth certificate during the admission and denial of documents. The said document was issued bonafide as per procedure by the Municipal Board, Dibrugarh, Department of health services, Government of Assam as the appellant had lost the original birth certificate during shifting at the time of one of the transfer of the father of appellant being an army officer.
The said specifies upfront that it has been issued based on the original record of birth as available with the municipality.
e) The Ld. Trial Court erred in supposing that no other public document got prepared by the plaintiff. The Aadhar card of appellant bearing No. 637788317197, PAN Card of appellant being No. BVCPR5409N and the birth certificate of appellant i.e. 27.12.1990. Thus to correct the mismatch appellant RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 5/16 preferred the civil suit no. 714/17.
f) The Ld. Trial Court was in patent error while declining the said change of date of birth of appellant on the ground that the case of the plaintiff does not inspire confidence.
g) The Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that appellant has stated on oath in the plea for correction of date of birth that this request is not being made malafide and with any illegal gains as its motive.
h) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that this request of the appellant for correction of date of birth of appellant in the records of respondent has been made on the basis of validity issued public documents which gives appellant benefit as envisaged in the 1872 Act.
I) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant though an Engineer by qualification, was then preparing for UPSC examination and the above mentioned mismatch in date of birth in his school records and his actual date of birth on birth certificate of appellant was sure to create unnecessary confusion and disability for his ambition to join the central services.
8. Arguments heard and record perused.
9. The applicable rule 69.2 of CBSE Examination Bye-Laws is as follows:
Rule 69.2- Change of date of Birth:
i) No change in date of birth once recorded in Board's Record shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors can be made provided that consistent with the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board.RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 6/16
ii) Such correction in date of birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidate/ application form of the candidate for the examination.
iii) Request for correction in date of birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School alongwith attested photostate copies of:
a) application for admission of the candidate to the school;
b) portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been made; and
c) the School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at the time of admission.
iv) The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of School alongwith documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2 (iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within one years of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of one year.
10. In the present case, admittedly plaintiff passed his 10 th Standard on 27.05.2006 and present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 31.08.2017. Plaintiff had filed the suit for change of his date of birth from 27.06.1991 to 27.12.1990. According to plaintiff, his date of birth was inadvertently entered as 27.06.1991 in his school at Pune Maharashtra at the time of admission and said lacuna got carried forward in subsequents schools. As per rule 69.2 no change in date of birth once entered in the Board's Record shall be made, however, correction in the date of birth can be RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 7/16 made as per rule subject to certain condition as mentioned therein. Admittedly the plaintiff has not filed his previous birth certificate which he had filed at the time of his admission at his first school. During his cross examination plaintiff/PW-1 admitted that his previous birth certificate has been misplaced and hence he got his birth certificate Ex. PW1/A issued. The birth certificate Ex. PW1/A was issued on 26.05.2017. However, the birth certificate being a public document enjoys legal presumption of its correctness as contained in chapter V of Indian Evidence Act in terms of Section 76 r/w section 79 and 80 of the Act. Moreover, in CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevelkar, 58 (2009) 7 SCC 283, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the records maintained by the statutory authorities have a presumption of correctness in their favour and they would prevail over any entry made in the school register. In view of the same, the birth certificate Ex. PW1/A issued by Municipal Board Dibrugarh can be relied upon.
11. However the appellant/plaintiff has neither in his plaint nor in his evidence by way affidavit stated that plaintiff produced his previous date of birth certificate in his first school at the time admission in June,2015. Appellant/ plaintiff stated that in June 1995 at the time of admission to St. Josephs Boys School Khadki, Pune, Maharashtra, his date of birth was inadvertently entered as 27.06.1991 in place of 27.12.1990. This shows that the appellant/plaintiff was aware about the said mistake since his admission in his first school and despite that no efforts were made by the plaintiff to rectify the said error. Plaintiff has not even tried to rectify the error in his date of birth at the time of filing his admission form for examination of 10th class standard.
12. In the case of Chirag Jain vs CBSE & Ors [2011 (5) RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 8/16 ILR(Del) 267], it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"The 10th certificate issued by the CBSE goes with the life of a student as this certificate is the authenticated proof of the date of birth of a student. Such certificate is invariably accepted as a valuable piece of evidence in proof of date of birth and age of the applicant throughout his career ahead and even the courts attach a high degree of probative value to the certificate and the date of birth as entered in the certificate is accepted as almost binding. A student and his/her parents have to be very careful, alert and vigilant while disclosing the date of birth at the time of submission of forms for the examination of 10th class as any error at that stage certainly can prove fatal"
It was further observed in the said judgment that:
"Date of birth is something that no parent or child can forget or mistake and while receiving the certificate if there is a mistake then the student would make out within no time the mistake in the certificate and take steps for immediate rectification".
13. Class 10th result of the appellant/ plaintiff was declared by CBSE on 27.05.2006 and in this regard the plaintiff has also filed his class 10th mark sheet Ex. PW1/C. According to plaintiff/ appellant, his father approached CBSE for correction of his date of birth but his request was declined by CBSE. As per rule 69.2 (1) of CBSE byelaws no change in the date of birth once recorded in the boards register shall be made, however, corrections to correct typographical error and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school record can be made provided the corrections in the school record should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to the examination RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 9/16 to the board. Rule 69.2 (iv) states that application for correction of date of birth duly forwarded by Head of the School alongwith document mentioned in the byelaws 69.2 (iii), shall be entertained by the board only within one year of date of declaration of result and no correction whatsoever shall be made on the application submitted after the said period of one year. As per rule 69.2 the plaintiff/ appellant was required to send request for correction of date of birth duly forwarded by head of the school alongwith attested photocopies of application for the admission of the candidate of the school, portion of page of admission and withdrawal register where entry of date of birth has been mentioned with attested copy of certificate issued by Municipal Authority and School Leaving Certificate of previous school. Plaintiff/appellant has merely averred in the plaint that his father approached CBSE for change of his date of birth but nowhere plaintiff stated that he complied with the aforesaid requirements as mentioned in the rules. Even during cross examination, plaintiff/ appellant admitted that he had not filed any application to show that plaintiff approached his school or CBSE for change of date of birth. This shows that plaintiff has not complied with the necessary requirements as mentioned in the byelaws rules of CBSE. Plaintiff even admitted during his cross examination that his date of birth was written as 27.06.1991 in his admission form Ex. PW1/D1, admission leave register Ex. PW1/D2, his transfer certificate from Army School Jorhat Ex. PW1/D3, his registration form of CBSE in class 9 th Ex. PW1/D4 and list of candidates Ex. PW1/D5. This shows that date of birth of the plaintiff/ appellant which is mentioned in his class 10 th certificate is in accordance with his school record. Moreover, as per CBSE byelaws, the plaintiff/ appellant was required to apply for correction in his date of birth within one year from the declaration of the result which the plaintiff RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 10/16 has not complied with.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jigya Yadav (minor) Vs. CBSE & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3905/2011 dated 03.06.2021, while discussing entire byelaws of CBSE in detail, directed the CBSE to amend the byelaws, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court also discussed the procedure for correction and change in particulars of candidate in the record of CBSE and has observed as under:
170. The first is where the incumbent wants "correction" in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. As we have held there is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations. While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim against it by third party because of such correction. The CBSE would be justified in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate,as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with the fresh certificate to be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with caption/annotation against the changes carried out and the date of such correction. It may retain the original entries as it is except in respect of correction of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten. The fresh certificate may also contain disclaimer that the CBSE cannot be held responsible for the genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate. The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 11/16 fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing fresh certificate. At the same time, the CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results. Such a condition, as we have held, would be unreasonable and excessive. We repeat that if the application for recording correction is based on the school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained by it. However, if the request for recording change is based on changed school records post the publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the candidate would been titled to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because such a change would occur obviously at her instance. If she makes such application for correction of the school records, she is expected to apply to the CBSE immediately after the school records are modified and which ought to be done within a reasonable time. Indeed, it would be open to the CBSE to reject the application in the event the period for preservation of official records under the extant regulations had expired and no record of the candidate concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed. In the case of subsequent amendment of school records, that may occur due to different reasons including because of choice exercised by the candidate regarding change of name. To put it differently, request for recording of correction in the certificate issued by the CBSE to bring it in line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to application made prior to RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 12/16 publication of examination results of the CBSE.
171. As regards request for "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, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it.
This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 13/16 particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).(b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 120 of Jigya Yadav Vs. CBSE (supra) directed the CBSE to process of application of applicants on the same lines as mentioned in para 170 and 171 of the judgment until amendment of relevant byelaws. In the present case, the appellant / plaintiff had not even complied with the procedure requirement as discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above said judgment. The plaintiff/ appellant since his admission in his first school was aware about the mistake in his date of birth in the school record, despite that plaintiff did not make any effort to get the same corrected. Even in his 10th standard the plaintiff/ appellant did not get his date of birth corrected in his school record at the time of filing his admission form for examination of 10th standard. Appellant/ plaintiff has RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 14/16 also not filed any documentary proof to show that the appellant/ plaintiff applied for correction in his date of birth in his school and in CBSE. In view of the same, this court agrees with the finding of Ld. Trial Court that the case of the plaintiff does not inspire confidence as it unimaginable that plaintiff/ appellant waited for more than 11 years for correction in his date of birth. Moreover, in view of Chirag Jain Vs. CBSE & Ors (supra), a student and his/her parents have to be very careful, alert and vigilant while disclosing the date of birth at the time of submission of forms for the examination of 10th class as any error at that stage certainly can prove fatal and while receiving the certificate if there is a mistake then the student would make out within no time the mistake in the certificate and take steps for immediate rectification. Hence, appellant's/ plaintiff's claim for correction in the date of birth cannot be entertained after so many years.
16. The present suit was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff for the Mandatory Injunction thereby directing CBSE to change date of birth of the plaintiff in their records and issue fresh class 10 th Mark Sheet. Article 113 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act 1963 applies to the relief of Mandatory Injunction since no period of limitation is provided in other Articles for filing such suit. Article 113 provides the limitation period of three years and the period of limitation begins to run when the right to sue accrues. In the instant case at hand, right to sue accrued to the Plaintiff when he received the Mark sheet from C.B.S.E. wherein correction has been sought. Plaintiff's result of the plaintiff for class 10 th was declared on 27.05.2006 and plaintiff received his mark sheet in the same year, hence, the cause of action to file the present suit in the year 2006, while the plaintiff had filed the present suit after almost 11 years on 31.08.2017. Hence, the present suit is also barred by limitation. As per RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 15/16 plaint, cause of action to file the present suit arose in the month of June, 2017 when CBSE refused to accept the application of the plaintiff's father to rectify the date of birth. However, in view of above discussion, it is evident that plaintiff/ appellant has not filed any documentary evidence to show that plaintiff filed any application with the defendant/CBSE for correction in his date of birth. Moreover, no where in the plaint or in the evidence by way of affidavit, plaintiff has stated as when his father approached CBSE. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant/ plaintiff that the cause of action to file the present suit arose in the month of June, 2017. The suit filed much after three years was clearly time barred.
17. In view of above discussion, the present appeal has no merit. Thus, it stands dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Typed to the dictation directly, (Rajesh Kumar)
corrected and pronounced in Additional District Judge-03,
open court on 16.08.2023 East/KKD Courts, Delhi.
RCA 32/22 Arjun Rawat Vs. Central Board Of Secondary Education Page No. 16/16