Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sarthak Verma vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 22 September, 2020

IN THE COURT OF Ms. SURABHI SHARMA VATS, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
                        DELHI


                                              Civil Suit No:10035/2016
                                              Date of Institution: 02.12.2016
                                              Date of Judgment: 22.09.2020
                                              (Through Video Conferencing
                                                via CISCO Webex)

Sarthak Verma
Through natural guardian
Smt. Mamta Verma (Mother),
R/o DR­2, 2nd Floor, Krishna Market
Lajpat Nagar­1
New Delhi­110026                                       ...Plaintiff

                                                vs

Central Board of Secondary Education
Through its Secretary
Preet Vihar, New Delhi.                                ....Defendant no. 1

Kendriya Vidyalaya,
Through its Manager
Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi­110024                                       ....Defendant no. 2


                    Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction

JUDGMENT

1. Succinctly stated, the case of the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff CS No. 10035/2016 Page 1 of 17 Master Sarthak Verma had been studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya, NHPC, Dharchula, Pitoragarh, Uttrakhand till X Class mid­session; that in the year 2014, father of the plaintiff was transferred to Delhi and that is why, the plaintiff took admission in mid­session of class X in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, Delhi(Defendant no. 2).

The plaintiff has inter alia pleaded that when he filled the Form to appear in class X Examination being held by C.B.S.E. (Defendant no. 1), he had correctly filled his Date of Birth as 01.02.2000; that the plaintiff appeared and passed the class X C.B.S.E. Board Examination in the year 2015, being the student of Defendant No. 2. However, the roll number sent by the defendant no. 1 to Kendriya Vidyalaya, NHPC, Dharchula, Pitoragarh, Uttrakhand was used by the plaintiff to appear in the C.B.S.E. Board Examination. But, the plaintiff was then studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, Delhi; that when the result of the plaintiff was declared by C.B.S.E. (defendant no.

1), the Date of Birth of the plaintiff was incorrectly mentioned as 08.04.2000 instead of 01.02.2000 in Grade Certificate cum Marksheet by defendant no. 1.

On the above stated grounds, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to correct the Date of Birth of the plaintiff in all its record and certificates of class X and subsequent Certificates issued in favour of the plaintiff and also for a decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from recording incorrect Date of Birth in its record for class XII.

CS No. 10035/2016 Page 2 of 17

WRITTEN STATEMENT:

2. The defendant no. 1/C.B.S.E. filed Written Statement (WS) to the plaint, contending as follows:­ 2.1 That the Central Board of Secondary Education is a Society which was created pursuant to Government Notification. 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.

2.2 That the Central Board of Secondary Education, also known as C.B.S.E., is an autonomous society, which is fully self financed. The C.B.S.E. discharges the function of conducting examination, prescribing educational courses and generally maintaining the standards of school education and advising the Government of India when called upon to do so, on matters pertaining to school education. The C.B.S.E. frames its own rules and is governed by them. C.B.S.E. has its rules and regulations regarding change of Date of Birth.

2.3 That the suit of the plaintiff is not tenable in view of the amended Rule 69.2 (i) of the Examination Bye­Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education.

3. Replication to the WS of the defendant No. 1 was filed by the plaintiff, wherein the contents of the WS have been denied and those of the plaint have been reaffirmed. On non­appearance, Defendant No. 2 CS No. 10035/2016 Page 3 of 17 was proceeded Ex­Parte vide order dated 26.07.2017 of the then Ld. Predecessor Court.

ISSUES:

4. Vide order dated 26.07.2017, the following issues were framed:­

(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the limitation?

OPD.

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against both the defendants to record the Date of Birth of the plaintiff as 01.02.2000 instead of 08.04.2000? OPP.

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction against both the defendants to consequently correct the Date of Birth of the plaintiff in all its record and certificate of class 10th and 12th issued in favour of the plaintiff? OPP EVIDENCE:

5. In the Plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff examined three witnesses.

PW­1/Plaintiff Sarthak Verma: He tendered his evidence by way of an Affidavit which is Ex PW­1/1 and relied upon the following documents:­

(i) Mark A which is the copy of Transfer Certificate issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya, NHPC, Dharchula, Pitoragarh, Uttrakhand.

CS No. 10035/2016 Page 4 of 17

(ii) Mark B which is the copy of application for admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj.

(iii) Mark C which is the copy of letter dated 26.08.2016 sent by school to the C.B.S.E..

(iv) Ex. PW1/C (OSR) which is the class IX Registration Card..

(v) Ex. PW1/E (OSR) which is the copy of Gradesheet­cum­ Certificate of performance of class X.

(vi) Ex. PW1/J (OSR) which is the photocopy of Birth certificate of the plaintiff.

6. PW­2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Section officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj: PW­2 brought the school record which is as follows:

(i) Ex. PW­2/B is the attested copy of Transfer Certificate issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya, NHPC, Dharchula, Pitoragarh, Uttrakhand.

(ii) Ex. PW­2/C is the attested copy of Application for admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, Delhi.

(iii) Ex. PW­2/D are the attested copies of List of Candidates, letter dated 02.09.2016 addressed to the school by the C.B.S.E., letter dated 26.08.2016 addressed to the C.B.S.E. by the school and copy of Admission and Withdrawal register of the school (Collectively 7 pages).

CS No. 10035/2016 Page 5 of 17

7. PW­3 Sh. Manish Kumar, Sr Manager (HR), NHPC Ltd, Faridabad: PW3 brought the voluntarily retirement and medical record of the father of the plaintiff. PW­3 filed the following documents on the record:

(i) Ex. PW­3/1: Authority letter in favour of PW­3.

(ii)          Ex. PW­3/2: Copy of office ID card of PW­3.
(iii)         Ex. PW­3/3: Application given by Sh. S.K. Verma (father of

the plaintiff) for voluntarily retirement on medical grounds and the original filled performa in this regard.

(iv) Ex. PW­3/4: Copy of Medical record of Sh. S. K. Verma submitted by him in the Department.

(v) Ex. PW­3/5: Medical Certificate of Dr. Raman Jain regarding the illness and disability of plaintiff's father Sh. S. K. Verma.

8. In the Defendant's evidence, C.B.S.E./ defendant no. 1 examined DW­1 Sh. Dhruv Narayan (Superintendent, M & M Branch, C.B.S.E.) who tendered his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex. DW1/1 and relied upon the copy of Tabulation Register which is Ex. DW­1/B.

9. This court has heard the final arguments advanced by the respective learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and the entire record is carefully perused.

CS No. 10035/2016 Page 6 of 17

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL POSITION:

10. Issue­wise findings are as under:­ Issue no. (i) (I) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the limitation? OPD The case of the Plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1/CBSE committed an error in recording correct Date of Birth of the Plaintiff in Class X Marksheet of the Plaintiff and the defendant no. 1/ C.B.S.E. also rejected the request of the plaintiff for correction of the same. Counsel of the defendant submitted that the suit was then barred under Bye­ Laws of the C.B.S.E. as amended on 25.06.2015.

Perusal of the record shows that Mark sheet of the plaintiff of class X is dated 28.05.2015 and the C.B.S.E. rejected the request of the plaintiff for correction in the date of birth on 02.09.2016 on the ground that no correction whatsoever shall be considered on application submitted after the said period of one year.

The present suit is filed for the Mandatory and Permanent Injunction. 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 CS No. 10035/2016 Page 7 of 17 C.B.S.E. wherein correction has been sought and the right to sue further accrued when the defendant no 1 / C.B.S.E. rejected the request of the plaintiff seeking correction in the Date of Birth.

Admittedly, the plaintiff received the Marksheet after 28.05.2015 i.e. after the declaration of his result of class X and the request for correction in date of birth has been rejected by CBSE on 02.09.2016. The present suit has been filed on 02.12.2016. Thus, the suit has been filed within 3 years from the date of receipt of the Mark sheet and also within 3 years from the rejection of the request of the Plaintiff for correction in the date of birth.

Discussion on the point that whether the case of the plaintiff is covered/barred under Bye­Laws of C.B.S.E. shall ensue in the succeeding paragraphs of this Judgment.

11. Issue no. (ii) and (iii)

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against both the defendants to record the Date of Birth of the plaintiff as 01.02.2000 instead of 08.04.2000? OPP.

&

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction against both the defendants to consequently correct the Date of Birth of the plaintiff in all its record and certificate of class 10th and 12th issued in favour of the plaintiff? OPP CS No. 10035/2016 Page 8 of 17 Both these issues are interconnected and thus, taken up together. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff.

Ld. counsel for the plaintiff contended that the case of the plaintiff is for the correction of the Date of Birth and the correct Date of Birth of the plaintiff has been consistently recorded in the school record of the plaintiff. However, incorrect Date of Birth got recorded in X Class Marksheet of the plaintiff since he changed his school from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dharchula, Uttrakhand to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, Delhi in the mid session of class X; that the plaintiff appeared in the class X C.B.S.E Board Examination in the year 2015 and the mistake in Date of Birth of the plaintiff took place due to inadvertent error committed by either of the defendants.

Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the CBSE/ defendant no. 1 argued that the present case is the case of the Change of the Date of Birth since the C.B.S.E recorded the same Date of Birth of Plaintiff in the X Class Marksheet as was forwarded to it by the defendant no. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalya, Andrews Ganj). Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No. 1/C.B.S.E. also stated that Defendant is relying on the Examination Bye­Laws of C.B.S.E. as amended on 01.02.2018 and DW1 has also deposed about those Rules in his Affidavit Ex. DW1/1.

12. First and foremost, this court deems it fit to determine whether the case of the plaintiff falls within "Correction" of Date of Birth or "Change" of D.O.B. since different rules of the Examination Bye­Laws CS No. 10035/2016 Page 9 of 17 are applicable for the "Correction" and "Change" of Date of Birth of the candidate. Rule 69.2 deals with the Change in Date of Birth whereas Rule 69.3 deals with the correction in the date of birth.

Counsel for the Defendant no. 1 /C.B.S.E. has relied upon the amended Rule 69.2 of Examination Bye­Laws vide Notification dated 01.02.2018 of the C.B.S.E. Rules 69.2 and 69.3 regarding Change/Correction in Date of Birth as per Notification dated 01.02.2018 of the C.B.S.E. are reproduced herein, for ready reference.

                Existing Rule                     Amended Rule
 69.2 (i)                              69.2

No change in the Date of Birth No Change in the Date of Birth once recorded in the Board's once recorded in the Board's records records shall be made. However, shall be made.

corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board.

69.2 (Correction in Date of Birth) 69.3 (Correction in Date of Birth) i. Correction to correct A. Correction as per the school typographical and other errors to records:

CS No. 10035/2016 Page 10 of 17

make the certificate consistent with i. Corrections to correct the school records can be made typographical and other errors to provided that corrections in the make the certificate consistent with school records should not have the school records can be made been made after the submission of provided that corrections in the application form for admission to school records should not have been Examination to the Board. made after the submission of ii. Such correction in Date of application form for admission to Birth of a candidate in case of Examination to the Board. genuine clerical errors will be ii. Such correction in Date of made under orders of the Chairman Birth of a candidate in case of where it is established to the genuine clerical errors will be made satisfaction of the Chairman that under orders of the Chairman where the wrong entry was made it is established to the satisfaction of erroneously in the list of the Chairman that the wrong entry candidates/application form of the was made erroneously in the list of candidate for the examination. candidates/application form of the iii. Request for correction in candidate for the examination. Date of Birth shall be forwarded by iii. Request for correction in Date the Head of the School alongwith of Birth shall be forwarded by the attested Photostat copies of:­ Head of the School alongwith

a) Application for admission of attested Photostat copies of:

the candidate to the school; a) Application for admission of the

b) Portion of the page of candidate to the School;

admission and withdrawal register b) Portion of the page of admission where entry in date of birth has and withdrawal register where entry been made along with attested copy in Date of Birth has been made of the Certificate issued by the along with attested copy of the Municipal Authority, if available, Certificate issued by the Municipal as proof of Date of Birth submitted Authority, if available, as proof of at the time of seeking admission; Date of Birth submitted at the time and of seeking admission; and

c) The School Leaving Certificate c) The School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at of the previous school submitted at the time of admission the time of admission CS No. 10035/2016 Page 11 of 17 iv. The application for correction iv. The application for correction in Date of Birth duly forwarded by in Date of Birth duly forwarded by the Head of school alongwith the Head of school alongwith documents mentioned in byelaws documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2(iii) shall be entertained by the 69.2(iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within one year of the Board only within Five years of the date of declaration of result. No date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever shall be correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted made on application submitted after after the said period of one year. the said period of five years.

v. This rule will be applicable to all cases after class X/XII 2015 examination onwards.

B. Correction as per Court Orders Applications regarding correction in Date of Birth of candidates will be considered provided the correction have been admitted by the Court of law. In cases of correction in Date of Birth in documents after the court orders caption will be mentioned on the document "Correction allowed in Date of Birth from _______ to_______on (dated) _____ as per court order no_______ dated________."

13. Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.1/C.B.S.E. argued that as per the List of Candidates of class X (Ex. PW­2/D) sent by the school to CS No. 10035/2016 Page 12 of 17 the C.B.S.E, the Date of Birth of the Plaintiff "Sarthak Verma" has been mentioned as 08.04.2000 at page no. 4 of Ex. PW­2/D and the said Date of Birth has been mentioned in the X Class Mark sheet of the Plaintiff, by the C.B.S.E. Thus, there is no mistake or inadvertent error on the part of the C.B.S.E. in recording Date of Birth of the plaintiff in the Mark sheet.

Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the correct Date of Birth of the plaintiff is 01.02.2000 and all the school documents and record depict the correct date of birth of the plaintiff; that the birth certificate of the plaintiff also shows the correct date of birth of the plaintiff. However, due to mid session transfer of the plaintiff from one school to another in the class X, this error in the date of birth took place on the part of either of the defendant.

14. Perusal of the attested school record i.e. attested copy of the Application for Admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, Delhi which is Ex. PW­2/C, Transfer Certificate from Kendriya Vidyalaya, NHPC, Dharchula, Uttrakhand, the attested copy of which is Ex. PW­2/D (Page 1), List of candidates, copy of which is Ex. PW­2/D (Page 3), leaflet of Admission and Withdrawal register, copy of Birth Certificate Ex. PW­1/J reveals that Date of Birth of the candidate / plaintiff as 01.02.2000. Perusal of the Transfer Certificate issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya, NHPC, Dharchula, Uttrakhand shows the date of first admission of the plaintiff in Kendriya Vidyalaya as 04.05.2005 and the Date of Birth as 01.02.2000.

CS No. 10035/2016 Page 13 of 17

Therefore, it becomes evident that the Date of Birth of the plaintiff / candidate has been consistently recorded in his school record as 01.02.2000. Perusal of the letter dated 26.08.2016, addressed to the defendant no. 1/ CBSE sent by the defendant no. 2 (Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj) reveals that it has been mentioned by the Principal of the defendant no. 2 that due to human mistake, while printing the Grade sheet cum Certificate of performance of the student, the Date of Birth printed of the previous student whose registration No. is R115/09250/0021 and serial No. is 00021. This letter also reveals the details of the plaintiff wherein Date of Birth of the plaintiff as per List of Candidates is mentioned as 01.02.2000 and actual Date of Birth as per school register is also mentioned as 01.02.2000. However, Date of Birth printed in the Mark sheet is mentioned as 08.04.2000.

Perusal of one of the document (which has not been exhibited or marked during trial) i.e. letter dated 29.04.2015 addressed to Assistant Secretary (Exams X & XII), Regional Office, C.B.S.E. by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi, subject of which is captioned as "Deletion of Roll no. 8209050 Sarthak Verma from LOC" wherein it is mentioned that the plaintiff Sarthak Verma student of class X took admission in this school in the month of November 2014 on parents transfer and with the permission of C.B.S.E, he was registered by C.B.S.E. with two roll numbers i.e. 8209050 (photograph of student not matched bearing the name Shadab not a student of this Vidyalaya) and roll no. 8221386. Thus, C.B.S.E. has been CS No. 10035/2016 Page 14 of 17 requested by the Principal of Defendant No. 2(Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi) to delete the roll no 8209050. This letter also corroborates the claim of the plaintiff that somewhere error/mistake in his Date of Birth took place due to two roll numbers issued to him by the C.B.S.E for the class X Examination 2015.

15. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case, after taking into consideration the entire school record, it can be deciphered that the Date of Birth of the plaintiff has been consistently recorded as 01.02.2000 in his school record. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff falls within the ambit of "Correction in the date of birth" and it does not amount to the Change in the Date of Birth.

16. Now, the question which needs to be determined is whether the case of the plaintiff falls under unamended Bye­Laws or amended Bye­Laws applicable vide Notification dated 01.02.2018.

17. Ld. counsel for the Defendant no. 1 / CBSE submitted that the amended Bye­Laws vide Notification dated 01.02.2018 are applicable to all the cases after Class X/XII 2015 Examination onwards.

18. The plaintiff has passed the Class X Examination in the year 2015 and Rule 69.3(v) of the amended Bye­Laws vide Notification 01.02.2018 provides that this rule will be applicable to all cases after CS No. 10035/2016 Page 15 of 17 Class X/XII 2015 Examination onwards. Thus, the benefit of the amended Bye­Laws is to be extended to the plaintiff since he passed the Class X Examination in year 2015.

19. According to Rule 69.3(iv) of the Examination Bye­Laws of CBSE, 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 Five years of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever, shall be made on application submitted after the said period of Five years.

As per the factual matrix of this case, the Date on the Class X Marksheet is 28.05.2015 (Declaration of result), the Principal of the School has sent a letter to the C.B.S.E on 26.08.2016 and the same was rejected by the C.B.S.E vide letter dated 02.09.2016 and the present suit has been filed on 02.12.2016. Thus, it is pellucid that all these formalities for correction in the Date of Birth have been carried out within a period of 5 years from the date of declaration of the result. Accordingly, the benefit of the Rule 69.3(iv) regarding the correction in Date of Birth is extended to the Plaintiff.

In the light of above discussion, issues no. (ii) & (iii) are decided in favour of the Plaintiff.

20. In view of the findings on issues, this court holds that the CS No. 10035/2016 Page 16 of 17 Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Mandatory Injunction. Accordingly, a decree of mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant no.1 i.e C.B.S.E, thereby directing the Defendant No. 1 (C.B.S.E.) to correct the Date of Birth of the plaintiff as 01.02.2000 in its record instead of 08.04.2000 and in the documents/certificates issued by C.B.S.E. to the Plaintiff and to issue fresh documents to the Plaintiff as per rules in the regard. Suit of the Plaintiff is thus partly decreed in his favour and against the defendants. It is hereby clarified the decree of Permanent Injunction restraining them from recording incorrect Date of Birth of the Plaintiff in subsequent Certificates, is not passed, since the C.B.S.E has already recorded incorrect Date of Birth of the Plaintiff in the Certificates issued by C.B.S.E.

21. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

Announced in the open Virtual Court        (SURABHI SHARMA VATS)
through Video Conferencing                       SCJ/RC (East)
via CISCO Webex                             Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
on this 22th day of Sep, 2020                    22.09.2020.




CS No. 10035/2016                                             Page 17 of 17