Delhi District Court
Present Mailing Address vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 23 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms. HARLEEN SINGH, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Civil Suit No: 606/17
Date of Institution: 29.07.2017
Date of Judgment: 23.04.2019
Shivansh Grover @ Sujal Grover
Through his Natural Guardian/father Sh. Praveen Grover
R/o D372, Nehru Vihar
Near Timarpur, Delhi110054
Present Mailing address:
D361, Nehru Vihar
Near Timarpur, Delhi110054 ...Plaintiff
vs
1. Central Board of Secondary Education
Through its Chairman/Director
2, CBSE Building, Community Centre
Preet Vihar, Delhi110092
2. Little Fairy Public School
Through its Principal/Director
Hudson Line, Delhi110009 ....Defendants
Suit for Mandatory Injunction and Declaration
CS No. 606/17 Page 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is: 1.1 That the plaintiff was born in Delhi on 15.12.1999 and is presently pursuing his higher studies.
1.2 That the plaintiff is a student of Little Fairy Public School, Hudson Line, Delhi110009 and appeared for his class X Secondary Board Examination vide Roll No. 8174325 conducted by the CBSE. 1.3 That Sujal is the nick name of the plaintiff and his real name is Shivansh Grover. However, in the official records of the defendant no.1, the name of the plaintiff appears as Sujal Grover. Further, the real name of the plaintiff's mother is Gayatri Grover but in the official records of the defendant no.1, it is wrongly mentioned as Anu Grover. 1.4 That in order to avoid unnecessary trouble, the plaintiff and his mother decided to change/correct their name from Sujal Grover to Shivansh Grover and Anu to Gayatri Grover respectively, after following the requisite procedure laid down by the law. 1.5 That the plaintiff, through his father, swore an affidavit for change/correction of the name of the plaintiff from Sujal Grover to Shivansh Grover, and also sent a written request/letter dated 10.01.2017 to the Principal, Little Fairy Public School, Hudson Line. The said change/correction regarding the name of the plaintiff was also published through the father of the plaintiff in the newspaper Veer Arjun on CS No. 606/17 Page 2 of 19 23.11.2016 in vernacular language.
1.6 That the mother of the plaintiff also swore an affidavit for correction/change of her name from Anu Grover to Gayatri Grover, and also sent a written request/letter dated 10.01.2017 to the Principal, Little Fairy Public School, Hudson Line. The said change/correction regarding the name of the plaintiff's mother was also published in the newspaper Veer Arjun on 06.12.2016 in vernacular language. 1.7 That after due publication in the above mentioned newspaper and swearing of affidavit for change/correction of name, the plaintiff and his mother applied for publication in the Gazette of India. The new name of the plaintiff and his mother were duly published in the weekly Gazette vide Registered No. DL(N)04/0007/200305 dated December 17 December 23, 2016 (Agrahayana 26,1938) at page no. 2410 and vide Registered No. DL(N)04/0007/200305 dated December 31 December 23, 2016 (Agrahayana 26,1938) at page no. 2410. 1.8 That after due publication and completion of all the requisite procedures, the plaintiff and his mother approached the defendant no.1 in person on several occasions and also made a written representation to the defendant no.1, requesting it to correct the records pertaining to the plaintiff as well as his mother in the documents issued by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff and his mother also requested the defendant no.1 to issue fresh documents after incorporating the said change in their names. The defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff that his application regarding change/correction of name will be considered only where such changes CS No. 606/17 Page 3 of 19 have been permitted by the court of law and notified in the official Gazette.
1.9 That the plaintiff and his mother also sent a legal notice dated 04.05.2017 to the defendant no.1 in this regard and the same was delivered on 05.05.2017, but the defendant no.1 did not reply to the same. 1.10 Thus, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the name of the plaintiff as Shivansh Grover instead of Sujal Grover and that of his mother as Gayatri Grover instead of Anu Grover. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction seeking necessary directions to the defendants to effect the said change/correction in his and his mother's name in their official records and to issue fresh certificates to that effect, as well as restraining the defendants from issuing any further certificates in the old name of the plaintiff.
2. Initially, the present suit was filed only against one defendant i.e CBSE. Vide order dated 12.09.2017 of the learned predecessor of this court, the school of the plaintiff was added as the defendant no.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC as it appeared to be a necessary party.
3. The defendant no.1/CBSE filed Written Statement (WS) to the plaint, contending as follows: CS No. 606/17 Page 4 of 19 3.1 That the Central Board of Secondary Education is a Society which was created pursuant to Government Notifications. The Central Board of Secondary Education is controlled by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources. However, it can sue and be sued through its Secretary only.
3.2 That the Central Board of Secondary Education, also known as CBSE, is an autonomous society, which is fully self financed. The CBSE discharges the function of conducting examination, prescribing educational courses and generally maintaining the standard of school education and advising the Government of India when called upon to do so, on matters pertaining to school education. 3.3 That the CBSE frames its own rules and is governed by them. CBSE has its rules and regulations regarding change of name. 3.4 That the suit of the plaintiff is not tenable in view of the amended Rule 69.1 (i) of the Examination ByeLaws of the Central Board of Secondary Education and the amended office order dated 06.02.2015 and Notification dated 26.06.2015 regarding change of name. 3.5 That the position regarding change of name was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sajjad Barakat vs CBSE in WP (C) No. 5967/2008.
3.6 That the present suit is without any cause of action and the same is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 3.7 That the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts.
CS No. 606/17 Page 5 of 193.8 That the suit is barred by limitation, as the ByeLaws of the defendant no.1 only permit change in name before the declaration of the class X result.
4. The defendant no.2/School filed Written Statement (WS) to the plaint, contending as follows: 4.1 That the present suit is a gross misuse of the process of law. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts.
4.2 That after the plaintiff appeared in his class X CBSE examination, he was issued a marksheet by the CBSE in the year 2016. Thereafter, the plaintiff passed his class X in the second attempt and a marksheet was issued to him by the CBSE in the year 2017. Thus, the defendant no.2 does not have any authority to make any alternations in the name of the plaintiff and his mother.
4.3 That the name of the plaintiff was mentioned in the records as per the Birth Certificate provided by him at the time of his admission in the defendant no.2 school, wherein the plaintiff's name is mentioned as Sujal Grover. Further, in the said Birth Certificate, the name of the plaintiff's mother has been mentioned as Anu Grover. 4.4 That the plaintiff and his mother have changed their name from Sujal Grover to Shivansh and Anu Grover to Gayatri Grover. 4.5 That the plaintiff got admission with the defendant no.2 in CS No. 606/17 Page 6 of 19 the year 2006 and submitted his Birth Certificate and Admission Form. 4.6 That the plaintiff registered himself with the defendant no.1 for class IX in 20142015 on 08.09.2015 under the name Sujal Grover S/o Parveen Grover and Anu Grover. In this regard, he signed the List of Candidates of the defendant no.1 as Sujal Grover. 4.7 That in May, 2016, the plaintiff was detained in class X with roll no. 8174441 with the name Sujal Grover, as he did not score the requisite grades. The plaintiff and his father refused to collect/accept the said marksheet, as the father of the plaintiff has stated that he would collect/accept only that marksheet in which his son has passed his class X. 4.8 That thereafter, the plaintiff reregistered himself with the defendant no.1 for class X examination under the name Sujal Grover S/o Parveen Grover and Anu Grover and under the roll no. 8174325. In this regard, he signed the List of Candidates of the defendant no.1 as Sujal Grover on 07.04.2017, without any objection. 4.9 That applications in this regard were written by the father of the plaintiff to the defendant no.2 on 20.01.2017. The said applications and the relevant school records were forwarded to the defendant no.1 by the defendant no.2 for necessary action, vide letter dated 27.01.2017, which were received by the defendant no.1 on 31.01.2017. 4.10 That in May, 2017, the plaintiff passed class X with the same name i.e Sujal Grover S/o Parveen Grover and Anu Grover, as was registered with the defendant no.1 in the year 2016. The plaintiff left the CS No. 606/17 Page 7 of 19 defendant no.2 school after clearing his class X examination. The defendant no. 2 issued a School Leaving Certificate dated 12.07.2017 to the plaintiff.
4.11 Thus, the defendant no.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present suit with heavy costs.
4.12 Alongwith the WS, the defendant no.2 filed the following
documents:
(i) Letter/resolution dated 17.11.2017.
(ii) Copy of Admission Form of the plaintiff.
(iii) Copy of Birth Certificate dated 17.12.1999 of the plaintiff.
(iv) Copy of Circular dated 29.07.2015 of the Directorate of
Education.
(v) Copy of Notification dated 25.06.2015 of the CBSE.
(vi) Copy of List of Candidates for the session 20142016.
(vii) Copy of Gradesheet cum Certificate of Performance of class
X of the plaintiff for the session 20142016.
(viii) Copy of List of Candidates for the year 2017.
(ix) Application for change of name of the plaintiff.
(x) Application for change of name of the plaintiff's mother.
(xi) Copy of the two Gazette publications. (xii) Letter dated 27.01.2017 of the defendant no.2 to the
defendant no.1 for change of name of the plaintiff.
(xiii) Letter dated 27.01.2017 of the defendant no.2 to the defendant no.1 for change of name of the plaintiff's mother.
CS No. 606/17 Page 8 of 19(xiv) Internet generated copy of Marksheet of class X of the plaintiff issued in the year 2017.
(xv) Copy of the School Leaving Certificate dated 12.07.2017 of the plaintiff.
5. Vide order dated 24.04.2018, the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration, as prayed ? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP
(iii) Relief.
6. In the plaintiff's evidence, three witnesses were examined. At the time of filing of the present suit, the plaintiff was a minor and the suit was filed through his father Praveen Grover. Subsequently, the plaintiff attained majority on 15.12.2017 (as per the testimony of the plaintiff's father).
The plaintiff's father Praveen Grover was examined as PW1. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW2. His mother was examined as PW3. All these witnesses deposed on the same lines as the plaint.
PW1 relied upon the following documents:
(i) Mark A which is the copy of Aadhar Card of Praveen Grover.
CS No. 606/17 Page 9 of 19(ii) Ex. PW1/2 which is the copy of request letter/application received by defendant no. 2 on 10.01.2017.
(iii) Ex. PW1/3 which is the copy of the request letter/application sent to the defendant no. 2.
(iv) Ex. PW1/4 which is the copy of Gazette publication for the period of December 17 December 23, 2016 vide registration no. DL(N)04/0007/200305.
(v) Ex PW1/5 which is the copy of Gazette publication for the period of December 31, 2016 - January 6, 2017 vide registration no. DL(N)04/0007/200305.
(vi) Ex PW1/6 (colly 3 pages) which is the copy of legal notice dated 04.05.2017 sent by PW1 to the defendant no.1.
(vii) Ex PW1/7 (colly 3 pages) which is the copy of legal notice dated 04.05.2017 sent by the plaintiff's mother to the defendant no.1.
(viii) Ex. PW1/8 and Ex PW1/9 which are the original postal receipts dated 05.05.2017 in respect of the above mentioned two legal notices.
PW2 and PW3 also relied upon the above mentioned documents in their testimony.
7. No evidence was led on behalf of either of the defendants. None for the defendant no.2 appeared since 11.09.2018 and the defendant no.2 was accordingly proceeded exparte on 14.12.2018.
CS No. 606/17 Page 10 of 198. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the respective learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. None from the side of the defendant no.2 appeared in order to advance final arguments. The entire record is perused.
9. My issuewise findings are as under: Issue no. (i) and (ii) Both these issues are interconnected, hence I shall discuss and decide them together. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff.
At the outset, it must be mentioned that the plaintiff has not even filed copy of the Marksheet/Certificate in question, in respect of which he wishes to get his and his mother's name changed. However, copy of the original Marksheet of the year 2016 and the revised Marksheet of the year 2017 has been filed by the defendant no.2.
Counsel for the defendant no.1/CBSE has relied on the Manual of Rules and Regulations of CBSE, Office Order dated 06.02.2015 of the CBSE, Notification dated 25.06.2015 of the CBSE as well as Office Order dated 18.11.2015 of the CBSE.
As per the Office Order dated 18.11.2015 of the CBSE, CS No. 606/17 Page 11 of 19 "Requests for change in a candidate's/parent's name/surname, as the case may be, received till 24.06.2015 be dealt on the basis of the rules prevalent on that date. However, requests received w.e.f 25.06.2015 be dealt in accordance with the revised rules circulated vide Notification dated 25.06.2015, irrespective of the year of examination."
In the present suit, the plaintiff has relied upon two applications Ex PW1/2 and Ex PW1/3 sent to the defendant no.2. Ex PW1/2 shows the date of its receiving as 10.01.2017, whereas no such endorsement appears on Ex PW1/3. As such, both the said applications are undated.
Thus, the case of the plaintiff is covered by the amended rules which were applicable to requests received w.e.f 25.06.2015, as per the Office Order dated 18.11.2015.
Now, what is to be seen are the amended rules of CBSE regarding change in the name of a candidate and his/her parents.
As per the CBSE Notification dated 25.06.2015, the existing and amended Rule 69.1 (i) regarding change in name of a candidate or his parents or guardian is as follows: Rule No. Existing Rule Amended Rule 69.1 (i) Change in name of Applications regarding CS No. 606/17 Page 12 of 19 Candidate/Father/Mother/Guardian changes in name or once entered in the Board's record at surname of candidates any stage while studying in class IX, may be considered X, XI, XII or thereafter, within a provided the changes period of ten years from the date of have been admitted by issue of first such document shall be the Court of law and considered on written request of the notified in the candidate (not minor) Government Gazette /Father/Mother/Guardian duly before the publication forwarded by the Head of Institution of the result of the supported by the following candidate.
documents:
(a) Original copy of two newspapers (daily English/Hindi newspaper at National Level and daily newspaper in a vernacular language circulated in the locality) in which the desired change has been published.
(b) Original Affidavit duly sworn before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class/Metropolitan Magistrate/ Executive Magistrate/SubDivisional Magistrate.
(c) Original copy of Publication in Government Gazette.
(d) Payment of prescribed fee
(e) True copy of admission form filled by the parents duly updated as per Gazette Notification of desired change and duly attested by the Head of the concerned Institution.
(f) True copy of School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted by the parent/candidate at CS No. 606/17 Page 13 of 19 the time of admission and updated as per Gazette Notification of desired change duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution.
(g) True copy of the page of admission and withdrawal register of the school where the entry has been made in respect of candidate showing updation as per Gazette Notification of desired change, duly attested by the Head of the concerned Institution.
As per the above mentioned amended Rule 69.1 (i), applications regarding change in name of a candidate and his mother 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.
In the present case, the class X result of the plaintiff was declared in the year 2016. Since the plaintiff could not clear class X in the year 2016, he reappeared for the said examination in the year 2017 and then cleared class X. Both the applications Ex PW1/2 and Ex PW1/3 merely mentioned that the plaintiff and his mother have changed their name. No reason for the same has been cited. The plaint is also silent on this aspect. Admittedly, the Gazette notifications Ex PW1/4 and Ex PW1/5 were got done by the plaintiff after publication/declaration of his result in the year 2016.
A perusal of the applications/letters dated 27.01.2017 sent by CS No. 606/17 Page 14 of 19 the defendant no.2 to the defendant no.1 for forwarding the request of the plaintiff and his mother for change of their names shows that the same were accompanied with only the copy of the Gazette Notifications. The plaintiff did not take any steps to furnish the requisite documents as per the above mentioned byelaws of the defendant no.1. No affidavit sworn before a Magistrate has been filed. No publication in the newspaper was got done by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to comply with the basic procedural requirements under the byelaws of the defendant no.1.
All the documents filed by the defendant no.2 show the plaintiff's name as Sujal Grover and his mother's name as Anu Grover. The same include the Admission Form of the plaintiff, the Birth Certificate submitted by the plaintiff as well as the various List of Candidates signed by the plaintiff himself.
In his crossexamination, PW1 Praveen Grover has admitted that in the application form of class I, his son's name was written as Sujal and that from class I to class X, his son's name was Sujal. As per PW1, he moved an application for change of his son's name before the defendant no.2 in the year 2016 but he did not place the same on record. He admitted that the Birth Certificate of the plaintiff filed by the defendant no.2 (Ex. PW1/D1) was submitted by him at the time of admission of his son in the defendant no.2 school. He also admitted that no newspaper publication or affidavit of the plaintiff sworn before the concerned Magistrate was filed alongwith the present suit. PW1 further admitted that he did not place any document regarding change in his son's CS No. 606/17 Page 15 of 19 name along with his application purportedly filed before the defendant no.2 school in the year 2016. PW1 went on to admit that he initiated the entire process of getting his son's name changed after the declaration of his class X result in May, 2016. PW1 also admitted that the defendant no.1/CBSE issued the documents of his son on the basis of the particulars given by him to the defendant no.2 and that there is no mistake on the part of the defendant no.1 in issuing the documents in question.
During his crossexamination, PW2 admitted his signatures at point A on the List of Candidates Ex PW1/D2 and Ex. PW1/D3. PW2 also admitted that on 07.04.2017, when he signed the List of Candidates of class X, his name was mentioned as Sujal Grover, his mother's name as Anu Grover and his father's name as Praveen Grover. He too admitted that the defendant no.1 issued the documents in question on the basis of the particulars given by the defendant no. 2 to the defendant no.1 and that there is no mistake on the part of the defendant no.1. PW2 also admitted that now he wants to change his name from Sujal Grover to Shivansh Grover and that he did not complete all the procedural formalities required by the CBSE in the first instance.
In her crossexamination, PW3 admitted that right from childhood, her son's name was Sujal and the same name was got recorded at the time of his admission in school. Like PW1 and PW2, PW3 also admitted that whatever name was got recorded by her and her husband was sent by the defendant no.2 to the defendant no.1 and that there is no mistake on the part of the defendant no.1 in recording the name of her son CS No. 606/17 Page 16 of 19 in the class X documents issued by the defendant no.1.
Thus, from the above discussion, it is apparent that whatever steps were taken by the plaintiff in order to get his and his mother's name changed in the records of the defendants were after the publication of his result of class X. As per the amended byelaws of the defendant no.1, the said steps were to be taken by the plaintiff before the publication of his result. Even as such, it is not the case of the plaintiff that his and his mother's name, as recorded by the CBSE in the documents in question, is different from that recorded by his school in the school records.
In the case of Ms Jigya Yadav (minor, through guardian/father Mr Hari Singh) vs CBSE and Others [W.P (C) No. 3774/2010 and C.M 7565/2010 decided on 20.12.2010], it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that: "17. We are also of the view that in a country where there is reservation on caste and religious grounds, change of name of parents or ward's name cannot be allowed at the drop of the hat.
18. Moreover, in our opinion, even if the Regulations permitted change of names of parents, this is not a case where the change of name should be allowed as the parents have repeatedly filled up the forms themselves and they alone are liable for the error/mistake, if any."
CS No. 606/17 Page 17 of 19It was further held in the said case that: "22. Moreover, we are of the view that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual daytoday working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to take a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problem of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or byelaw which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practiceas contended by the respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit."
CS No. 606/17 Page 18 of 19In view of the above discussion, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to any declaration or mandatory injunction against the defendants regarding change of his and his mother's name. Accordingly, issue no. (i) and (ii) are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. (iii) : Relief In view of my findings on issue no. (i) and (ii), I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him. Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed.
10. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (Harleen Singh)
on this 23rd day of April, 2019 SCJ/RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Digitally signed
by HARLEEN
SINGH
HARLEEN Location: Delhi
SINGH Date:
2019.04.23
17:43:44
+0530
CS No. 606/17 Page 19 of 19