Bangalore District Court
Sri.Pavan Kumar Kaushik vs ) The Director Of Public Instructions on 7 December, 2019
Govt.of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
From No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCCH.11)
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2019
PRESENT: Sri.Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No :5993/2018
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Pavan Kumar Kaushik,
S/o.Sri.Srinath.B.N
Aged about 25 years,
R/at: No.93, Sankalpa, 4th Cross,
Ganesha Layout, Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru -560 097.
-VS-
DEFENDANTS : 1) The Director of Public Instructions
Bengaluru South,
Opp.Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
2) The Secretary,
The Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru -560 003.
3) The Commissioner,
The Department of Pre-University Board,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru -560 003.
OS.5993/2018
2
4) The Vice Chancellor,
The Bengaluru University,
Bengaluru -560 056.
5) The Head Master,
The Poornaprajna High School,
HAL 3rd Stage, New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru South District - 560 075.
6) The Principal,
The Christ PU College,
Hosur Road, Bengaluru -560 029.
7) The Dean,
The National Centre for Biological
Science,
GKVK Campus, Bellary Road,
Bengaluru -560 065.
Date of Institution of the suit : 16.08.2018
Nature of the Suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 03.12.2018
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 07.12.2019
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 01 03 21
---
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
OS.5993/2018
3
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by Plaintiff praying for judgment and decree in his favour and against Defendants declaring his name as 'PAVAN KUMAR KAUSHIK' instead of 'PAVAN KUMAR KAUSIK' and to direct the Defendants to effect necessary changes in all his educational records maintained by Defendants by rectifying his name as 'PAVAN KUMAR KAUSHIK' .
2) Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that, he is the son of Sri.Srinath.B.N and Smt.Sreedevi. He was born on 15.10.1993. His parents named him as "PAVAN KUMAR KAUSHIK' and accordingly, he was admitted to Primary School. Defendants No.2 and 3 issued SSLC and PUC marks cards by mentioning his name as 'PAVAN KUMAR KAUSIK'. In Degree College marks card issued by Bangalore University, his name is mentioned as "PAVAN KUMAR KOUSHIK". Plaintiff applied to Defendant No.7 University in his name as 'Pavan Kumar OS.5993/2018 4 Kaushik'. Defendant No.7 objected that documents are shown as 'Pavan Kumar Kausik' and 'Pavan Kumar Koushik' and directed him to produce relevant documents to get appointed in 7th Defendant University.
3) It is stated that, Plaintiff got issued notice under Section 80(1) of CPC to Defendants on 11.06.2018. 3rd Defendant replied and directed to take appropriate measures to change his name in accordance with law. Efforts made by Plaintiff to take appropriate measures to change his name as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik' from 'Pavan Kumar Kausik' went in vein and also Defendants declined to entertain the same. Hence, prays for decree.
4) Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement, wherein, it is stated that, suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the OS.5993/2018 5 name of student in school records. Suit is barred by limitation, as the suit is filed after lapse of considerable time. There is no cause of action to file the suit and alleged cause of action is imaginary, hence, prays for dismissal of suit.
5) Heard. Perused the record.
6) Following Issues have been framed by this Court :
1) Whether Plaintiff proves that his name is "PAVAN KUMAR KAUSHIK"
as stated in the plaint?
2) Whether Defendants No.1 and 2 prove that this suit is not maintainable in view of Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department?
3) Whether suit is barred by limitation?
4) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed?
5) What Order or Decree?
7) Plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 in support of his case.
OS.5993/2018 6 Defendants have not chosen to lead evidence on their behalf.
8) My findings to the above Issues are :
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 - In the Negative;
Issue No.3 - In the Negative;
Issue No.4 - In the Affirmative;
Issue No.5 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
9) ISSUE NO.1 AND 2 : These two issues are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
This suit came to be filed by Plaintiff for declaring his name as "PAVAN KUMAR KAUSHIK' and for consequent changes in School records.
10) Plaintiff contends that, his name is 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'. In his primary school records, SSLC OS.5993/2018 7 and PUC records, his name has been entered as 'Pavan Kumar Kausik'. In his degree marks card, his name has been shown as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'. It is contended that, he made an application to 7 th Defendant in his name as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'. 7 th Defendant objected that other records of School show his name as 'Pavan Kumar Kausik' and directed him to produce relevant documents to get appointed in 7th Defendant.
11) It is contended that, in spite of giving statutory notice to Defendants, Defendants declined to entertain the demand made in the notice. As per religious custom, it is necessary to retain his name as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'; hence, prays for decree in order to make suitable changes in his name in School records.
12) On the contrary, Defendants No.1 and 2 contend that, as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no OS.5993/2018 8 provision to change the name of a student in school records, suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file this suit.
13) In order to prove Plaintiff's case, Plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. P.W.1 has been cross-examined by Defendants No.1 and 2.
14) Ex.P.1 is birth certificate, in which, name is left blank. It shows that a male child was born on 15.10.1993 at 'Sri Vinayaka Nursing Home'. It further discloses that child's father's name as 'Sri.Srinath.B.S' and mother's name as ' Smt.Sridevi'. Pleadings and examination-in-chief of P.W.1 reveal that, Plaintiff's father's name as 'Srinath.B.S' and mother's name as 'Sridevi'. Moreover, Ex.P.1 has been produced by Plaintiff himself, hence, it can be said that, Ex.P.1 belongs to Plaintiff.
OS.5993/2018 9
15) Ex.P.2 is notary attested copy of Passport issued by Republic of India, in which, Plaintiff's name is shown as 'KAUSHIK PAVAN KUMAR'. Ex.P.3 is Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India, in which, Plaintiff's name is shown as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'. Ex.P.4 is Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff, which discloses his name as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'.
16) Ex.P.5 is SSLC Marks Card, wherein, Plaintiff's name is shown as 'Pavan Kumar Kausik'. Ex.P.6 is PUC Marks Card, in which, Plaintiff's name is mentioned as 'Pavan Kumar Kausik'.
17) Exs.P.7 to P.13 are Statement of Marks got issued by Bangalore University, wherein, Plaintiff's name is shown as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'. Ex.P.14 is a Bonafide Certificate got issued by 7 th Defendant in favour of Plaintiff, wherein, 7th Defendant has specifically clarified that Plaintiff's actual name as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'. Said certificate was issued to Plaintiff to enable him to apply for Passport.
OS.5993/2018 10
18) Ex.P.15 is office copy of legal notice dated 28.05.2018 got issued under Section 80 of CPC to Defendants No.1 to 7. Ex.D.16 is postal receipt for having addressed the notice at Ex.P.15. Exs.P.17 to P.19 are postal acknowledgments for having served notice to Defendants No.3, 5 and 6. Ex.P.20 is letter dated 22.06.2018 got issued by Defendant No.3, wherein, Plaintiff is informed to make necessary changes in primary school records.
19) In Exs.P.2 to P.4 and Exs.P.7 to P.14, Plaintiff's name is shown as 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik'. In Exs.P.5 and P.6, SSLC and PUC Marks Cards, his name is mentioned as 'Pavan Kumar Kausik'. In Exs.P5 and P.6, alphabet 'h' is left out from the word 'Kaushik'. Plaintiff pleads that, his correct name is 'Pavan Kumar Kaushik', in which, the word 'Kaushik' contains alphabet 'h'. Exs.P.2 to P.6, Passport, Voter Card and Aadhaar Card are permanent documents as to identity of Plaintiff and same are used for day- to-day affairs. The word 'Kausik' as mentioned in OS.5993/2018 11 Exs.P.5 and P.6 is not in consonance with the word 'Kaushik' as mentioned in Exs.P.2 to P.4. Under such circumstances, Plaintiff is always answerable wherever he is asked to produce Exs.P.5 and P.6 for availing employment and such other relevant purpose. Moreover, astrologer, who studied 'kundali' of Plaintiff suggested him to retain the word 'Kaushik' instead of the word 'Kausik'. In that context, Plaintiff's feelings should be honoured. In this background, if Plaintiff's case is looked into, the word 'Kaushik' appears in Exs.P.5 and P.6 requires to be rectified. Defendants contend that, as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, change of name of student in school records is not permissible. Contention as taken by Defendants No.1 and 2 reads thus :
"5. ..... As per the circular issued by the Commissioner of education department, there is no provision to change the name of the student in school records. ... "
20) Defendants No. 1 and 2 have not produced any such Circular. From the contention of OS.5993/2018 12 Defendants, it can be said that, Defendants have no authority to make changes in school records without the order of Civil Court. In Gunda Naika P.S. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others (RFA No.322/2013 (DEC), decided on 10.12.2013), the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that, "The only pre-requirement for effecting the change of name in the educational records by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions is the obtaining of the decree from the competent Civil Court". Para-12 of the Judgment reads as follows :
"12. The trial court's reasoning that the appellant has not followed the procedure prescribed by the State and the Central Government is also not tenable. The respondents are in no position to point out any statutory provision or rule or Government order or circular prescribing the procedure for the change of name. On the other hand, the perusal of the circular dated 02/05/2000, shows that, the only pre-requirement for effecting the change of name in the educational records by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions is the obtaining of the decree by the applicant at the hands of the Competent Civil Court".
(underlined by me) OS.5993/2018 13
21) Hence, it is clear that, only requirement of Defendants is that, there must be an order from the Court to make necessary changes in school records in view of Circular issued by the Education Department. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 in the negative.
22) ISSUE NO.3: Defendant's contention is that, Plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Plaintiff has been cross-examined as to when he came to know about the wrong mentioning of his name in school records. Plaintiff has deposed that, after receiving 10th standard Marks Card, it came to his knowledge that alphabet 'h' has been left out in his name. He has further deposed that, from the date of receiving SSLC Marks Card till time, he has not taken any steps. Plaintiff, in the plaint, has pleaded that, after completion of his degree in the year 2014, his parents approached astrologer and after studying 'kundali' of Plaintiff, astrologer advised them to retain the word, which contains alphabet 'h'. Further, OS.5993/2018 14 it is contended that, Plaintiff has issued legal notice on 11.06.2018 to Defendants to make necessary changes in school records and since Defendant failed to take any steps, cause of action to file this suit arose on date of issue of legal notice on 11.06.2018. In the backdrop of the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to take the cognizance of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
23) In Union of India and others Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., and another [AIR 2004 SC 1596], Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that :
"21. A distinction furthermore, which is required to be noticed is that whereas in terms of Article 58 the period of three years is to be counted from the date when 'the right to sue first accrues'; in terms of Article 113 thereof, the period of limitation would be counted from the date 'when the right to sue accrues'. The distinction between Article 58 and Article 113 is, thus, apparent inasmuch as the right to sue may accrue to a suitor in a given case at different points of time and, thus whereas in terms of Article 58 the period of limitation would be reckoned from the date on which the cause of action arose first, whereas, in the latter the period of limitation would be differently computed OS.5993/2018 15 depending upon the last day when the cause of action therefor arose."
24) In this background, if the relief sought for by Plaintiff is looked into, it may say that, Plaintiff has sought for declaration to rectify the mistake crept in his name and for consequential relief directing Defendants to correct his name in the school records. Article 58 deals with declaration simpliciter without any consequential relief, which applies to declaratory suits only. Hon'ble Sikkim High Court was pleased to differentiate the intendment of both Articles 58 and 113 in Karma Doma Gyatso alias Babila Kazi Vs. Mrs.Kesang Choden & Ors. [AIR 2009 Sikkim 6], wherein the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that :
"..... Thus, it is manifest that for the purpose of limitation the relevant Article that applies to the case of declaration with a consequential relief would be the residuary Article 113 and not Article 58 which applies to declaratory suits.
18. It is thus obvious that Article 58 which applies to cases of declaration simpliciter would not be applicable in the OS.5993/2018 16 present case. Instead, it is residuary Article 113 which is attracted in the case of the Plaintiff. However, the period of limitation prescribed under both the Articles being 3 years when the right to sue first accrues (under Article 58) and when the right to sue accrues (under Article
113), the question as to which of the two Articles applies would not be of much significance particularly in the light of the finding that the right to sue accrued only in the year 2005 and the suit has been filed in the year 2006, i.e. within one year of the right to sue accruing. ......."
25) Hence, this Court is of the view that, Plaintiff's suit being a declaration as to correction of name in school records with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing Defendants to make necessary changes in school records, it squarely comes under Article 113, which states that, right to sue accrues. Even he has deposed that he came to know the mistake crept in his school records, when he received SSLC Marks Card, there has been pleading that after completing degree education in the year 2014, astrologer, who studied his 'kundali' advised him to retain his correct name for his better future OS.5993/2018 17 and thereafter, he issued legal notice, dated 11.06.2018 at Ex.P.15 to Defendants to make necessary correction in his school records. In these circumstances, it can be said that, Plaintiff has filed this suit within the time as prescribed in Article 113 from the date of issuance of legal notice dated 11.06.2018, on which, Defendants have failed to take any steps. Under such circumstances, it can be said that, Plaintiff has filed this suit well within the period of limitation as contemplated in Article 113. Accordingly, I answer the above Issue No. 3 in the negative.
26) ISSUE NO. 4: As discussed above, Plaintiff has proved his case by placing documentary, as well as oral evidence. Plaintiff, in his plaint, has pleaded that, if the mistake in his name is not set right, it would be difficult for him to get job and he would suffer lot in future. Plaintiff's grievance being reasonable and genuine, if Plaintiff's name is not corrected, it would create anomaly in the school OS.5993/2018 18 records of Plaintiff and same would affect the future prospects of Plaintiff, hence, suitable correction is required in the school records. In that event, I am of the view that, Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for, accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 in the affirmative.
27) Issue No.5: In view of the foregoing discussion and findings on Issue Nos.1 to 4, I am of the opinion that, Plaintiff has proved that his name has been wrongly shown in SSLC and PUC marks cards; same needs to be rectified and he is entitled to the relief as prayed for; accordingly I pass the following:.
ORDER (1) Suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed.
(2) It is hereby declared that Plaintiff's name as 'PAVAN KUMAR KAUSHIK'.
OS.5993/2018 19 (3) Defendants are hereby directed to effect necessary changes in all the educational records of Plaintiff by rectifying the name of Plaintiff as 'PAVAN KUMAR KAUSHIK' instead of 'PAVAN KUMAR KAUSIK' (4) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 7th day of December, 2019.) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
OS.5993/2018 20 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sri.Pavan Kumar Kaushik, dd.03.12.2018
(b) Defendants side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 - Notary attested copy of birth Certificate Ex.P.2 - Notary attested copy of Passport of Plaintiff Ex.P.3 - Notary attested copy of Identify Card of Plaintiff issued by Election Commission Ex.P.4 - Notary attested copy of Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff Ex.P.5 - Notary attested copy of SSLC Marks Card of Plaintiff Ex.P.6 - Notary attested copy of PUC Marks Card of Plaintiff Exs.P.7 to P.13- Notary attested copies of B.Sc.
Marks Card of Plaintiff Ex.P.14 - Bonafide Certificate dtd.19.01.2018 issued by 7th Defendant OS.5993/2018 21 Ex.P.15 - Copy of legal notice dtd.28.05.2018 Ex.P.16 - Postal Receipts Exs.P.17 to P.19 - Postal Acknowledgments Ex.P.20 - Reply issued by Defendant No.3
(b) Defendant's side : N I L
--
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.