Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Yogendra Prasad vs Govt. Co­Ed. Senior Secondary School on 24 September, 2019

   IN THE COURT OF Ms. HARLEEN SINGH, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
                        DELHI


                                                        Civil Suit No: 6817/16
                                                 Date of Institution: 15.12.2015
                                                 Date of Judgment: 24.09.2019


Yogendra Prasad
S/o Sh. Ram Swarth Prasad
R/o RZ L2/C, Nanda Block,
Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi­110045                                        ...Plaintiff

                                     vs

1.     Govt. Co­Ed. Senior Secondary School
       Sector­6, Site II, Dwarka
       Delhi­110075

2.     Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.)
       Through its Chairman
       Office at:­PS 1­2, Institutional Area
       Near Victor Public School
       Patparganj, Delhi ­110092                                      ....Defendants


             Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction


JUDGMENT

1. The case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is:­ CS No. 6817/16 Page 1 of 15 1.1 That the son of the plaintiff namely Prabhakar is presently studying in class XII in the defendant no.1 school (incorrectly mentioned as the defendant no.2 school in para 2 of the plaint) and his date of birth is 10.04.1999.

1.2 That till class V, the plaintiff's son Prabhakar studied in Nigam Prathmic Vidyalaya, Dwarka Sector 1/11, New Delhi. In this regard, School Leaving Certificate (Serial No.71 and file No.26) was obtained by the plaintiff, wherein his name was mentioned as Yogendra Prasad.

1.3 That thereafter, till class X, the plaintiff's son studied in the defendant no. 1 school and the name of the plaintiff was not correctly mentioned as Yogendra Prasad in all the school records. However, at the time of filing up the examination form of the plaintiff's son for class X, the teachers/officials of the defendant no.1 mistakenly mentioned the wrong name of the plaintiff. Despite requests made by the plaintiff, they did not undertake the necessary correction in his name. 1.4 That thereafter, the plaintiff's son Prabhakar took admission in class XI with the defendant no. 1 and he completed all the documentary formalities, including filling up of an admission form wherein the name of the plaintiff in the column of father's name is correctly mentioned as Yogendra Prasad. Inspite of the same, the defendant no.1 school has wrongly mentioned the name of the plaintiff as CS No. 6817/16 Page 2 of 15 Jogender Prasad in the school records of his son. 1.5 That in the school records of the plaintiff's son from class XI onwards, the name of the plaintiff was correctly mentioned, though the same remained uncorrected in the class X marksheet and certificate of the plaintiff's son.

1.6 That the plaintiff made several requests to the defendants to make the necessary correction in his name in the school records, but to no avail. The officials of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 asked the plaintiff to complete some necessary formalities. Consequently, the plaintiff got published a public notice dated 18.02.2015 in the daily newspaper Hindustan, as well as Hindustan Times. He also got published a public notice in the Gazette of India in its weekly publication on 18.07.2015. Furthermore, the plaintiff also got an order from the South Delhi Nagar Nigam, Education Department, Nazafgarh Area in this regard. Pursuant to the same, the School Inspector General issued an Office Order No.2359/DDE/NG/D dated 13.10.2015, thereby giving permission for amendment in the name of the plaintiff from Jogender Prasad to Yogendra Prasad in all the school records of his son. 1.7 That the plaintiff also got prepared an affidavit dated 15.10.2015, thereby declaring his correct and actual name as Yogendra Prasad. The said affidavit was duly attested by the Executive Magistrate on 20.10.2015.

1.8 That despite completion of all the above mentioned CS No. 6817/16 Page 3 of 15 documentary formalities, the defendant no.2 did not carry out any change/correction/amendment in the name of the plaintiff appearing in the school records of his son, including the Marksheet and Certificate of class X. 1.9 That in case the name of the plaintiff in the class X school records of his son Prabhakar is not corrected, the plaintiff's son shall suffer serious harm and may be denied any benefit provided by the government or other institutions.

1.10 Thus, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration in his favour and against the defendants, thereby declaring his correct name as Yogendra Prasad. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants, thereby directing the defendants to correct the name of the plaintiff in the records of his son from Jogender Prasad to Yogendra Prasad.

2. Inspite of the representative of the defendant no.1 as well as the counsel for the defendant no.1 appearing on many dates since the service of the summons, no Written Statement on behalf of the defendant no.1 was ever filed. Vide order dated 18.05.2016 of the learned predecessor of this court, opportunity of the defendant no.1 to file Written Statement was closed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

3. The defendant no.2/CBSE filed its Written Statement (WS) to the plaint, contending as follows:­ CS No. 6817/16 Page 4 of 15 3.1 That as per the CBSE norms, corrections in the name/ surname of the candidate and his/her parents/guardians can be made only to make the same consistent with the records maintained by the school. Further, the particulars of a student in the admit card, result and certificates issued by the CBSE are always as per the information in the records of the school given by the students/parents. The CBSE does not manufacture or develop any data of its own.

3.2 That 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 has not been created under a Statute. It frames its own rules/bye­laws and is governed by them. 3.4 That the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. Further, the suit does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant no. 2, and the same is also barred by the law of limitation, as the Bye­Laws of the defendant no.2 only permit the change in the name before the declaration of the class X results and the name should be consistent with the school records. 3.5 That the plaintiff has failed to serve the notice under Section 80 CPC.

3.6 That as per Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, CS No. 6817/16 Page 5 of 15 injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff. 3.7 That the plaintiff has failed to comply with the provisions of the Bye­Law no. 69.1 of the defendant no.2.

3.8 Alongwith the WS, the defendant no.2 filed the following documents:­

(i) Notification dated 25.06.2015 of the CBSE.

(ii) Letter dated 18.01.2016 of the defendant no.1 school addressed to the defendant no.2/CBSE.

(iii) Copy of the Admission Form of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar in respect of class XI, attested by the Principal of the defendant no.1 school.

(iv) Copy of the Transfer Certificate/School Leave Certificate issued by the previous school, attested by the Principal of the defendant no.1 school.

(v) Copy of the relevant page of the Admission and Withdrawal Register, attested by the Principal of the defendant no.1 school.

(vi) List of Candidates (LOC) for class X, attested by the Principal of the defendant no.1 school.

4. Vide order dated 18.05.2016, the following issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this court:­

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration to CS No. 6817/16 Page 6 of 15 change his name to Yogendra Prasad instead of Joginder Prasad as prayed for? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction against both the defendants regarding correction in class X Mark Sheet and Certificate from Joginder Prasad to Yogendra Prasad ? OPP

(iii) Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under bye­laws of CBSE? OPD

(iv) Relief.

5. In the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW­1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex PW­1/1. PW­1 relied upon the following documents:­

(i) Ex.PW1/A (OSR) which is the copy of the Affidavit dated 15.10.2015 of the plaintiff.

(ii) Ex.PW1/B (OSR) which is the copy of the relevant page of the Gazette of India for the period July 18­July 24, 2015.

(iii) Ex.PW1/C (OSR) which is the copy of the relevant page of the newspaper Hindustan Times.

(iv) Ex.PW1/D (OSR) which is the copy of the relevant page of the newspaper Hindustan dated 18.02.2015.

(v) Ex. PW1/E (OSR) which is the copy of the School Leaving CS No. 6817/16 Page 7 of 15 Certificate of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar.

(vi) Ex.PW1/F (OSR) which is the copy of Admission Form of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar.

(vii) Ex. PW1/G (OSR) which is copy of the Admission and Withdrawal Register of the school.

(viii) Ex PW1/H (OSR) which is the copy of order No.2359/DDE/NG/D dated 13.10.2015 of the Education Department, Nazafgarh Zone, SDMC.

(ix) Ex.PW1/I (OSR) which is the copy of Birth Certificate dated 20.04.1999 of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar.

(x) Ex. PW1/J (OSR) which is the copy of the Election Identity Card of the plaintiff.

(xi) Ex. PW1/K (OSR) which is the copy of the Pan Card of the plaintiff.

(xii) Ex PW1/L (OSR) which is the copy of the Grade Sheet­cum­ Certificate of Performance of class X of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar.

(xiii) Ex PW1/M (OSR) which is the copy of the Marksheet of class XI of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar.

The plaintiff/PW­1 also led additional evidence, by tendering his additional evidence affidavit Ex. PW­1/2. PW­1 additionally relied upon the following documents:­ CS No. 6817/16 Page 8 of 15

(i) Ex PW1/N (OSR) which is the copy of the Marksheet of class XII of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar.

(ii) Ex PW1/O (OSR) which is the copy of the Certificate of class XII of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar.

(iii) Ex PW1/P (OSR) which is the copy of the Aadhar Card of the plaintiff.

6. No evidence was led on behalf of either of the defendants.

7. I have heard the final arguments advanced by all sides, including the learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant no 2. The entire record is perused.

Four judgments were filed on behalf of the defendant no.2. The same are as under:­

(a) Mazhar Saleem Chandroth (minor) vs CBSE [W.P (C) No. 578/2017 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 12.04.2017].

(b) Aditya Srivastava (minor) through natural guardian/mother vs CBSE & Anr [LPA No. 41/2017 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23.01.2017].

(c) Shri Naveen Vyas vs The Secretary, CBSE & Anr [RSA no.

190/2010 & CM Appl No. 18820/2010 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 25.10.2010].

(d) Ms. Jigya Yadav (minor), through guardian/father Hari Singh vs CBSE & Ors [W.P (C) No. 3774/2010 & CM 7565/2010 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 20.12.2010].

8. My issue­wise findings are as under:­ Issue no. (i), (ii) and (iii) All these three issues are interconnected, hence I shall discuss and decide them together.

Alongwith the WS, learned counsel for the defendant no.2/CBSE has filed the Notification dated 25.06.2015 of the CBSE. The WS states that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the provisions of the Bye­Law no. 69.1. It nowhere states that the case of the plaintiff is covered under the amended Bye­Law no. 69.1.

Now, what is to be seen are the unamended Bye­Laws of CBSE regarding change in the name of a candidate's parent.

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. 6817/16 Page 10 of 15 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 CS No. 6817/16 Page 11 of 15 Certificate of the previous school submitted by the parent/candidate at 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 regards the procedural formalities required to be complied with under the above mentioned Bye­Law no. 69.1 of the CBSE, the plaintiff/PW­1 has stated in his cross­examination that he complied with the said formalities in July, 2015 and thereafter. As per the Bye­Law no. 69.1 (i) change in the name of a candidate's father may be considered within 10 years of the issuance of the first such document, provided the laid out procedural formalities are complied with.

In the present suit, the document in question i.e. Ex. PW­1/L was issued on 20.05.2014.

Alongwith the WS, the defendant no.2/CBSE has filed a letter dated 18.01.2016 of the defendant no.1 school addressed to the CBSE. The same states that "We are hereby submitting the following documents as asked in the letter no. CBSE/ROD/LEGAL/F.No.907/2015."

The submitted documents include attested copies of the Admission Form, Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate, portion of the Admission and Withdrawal Register and List of Candidates. This shows that the request of the plaintiff regarding the relief sought had already reached the defendant no.2/CBSE in the year 2015.

The plaintiff got the newspaper publications (Ex. PW­1/C and Ex. PW­1/D) as well as the Gazette Notification (Ex. PW­1/B) done in the year 2015 itself. His Affidavit (Ex. PW­1/A) was also sworn before the Executive Magistrate in the year 2015. Further, as per the letter dated 18.01.2016 sent by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2, attested copies of the Admission Form of the plaintiff, his Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate and portion of the Admission and Withdrawal Register were sent by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no.2. Thus, the plaintiff complied with all the requisite procedural formalities under the Bye­Law no. 69.1 (i) of the CBSE.

Even as regards the documents Ex. PW­1/E (School Leaving Certificate), Ex. PW­1/F (Admission Form) and Ex. PW­1/G (Relevant page of the Admission and Withdrawal Register) relied upon by the plaintiff, these very documents were filed by the defendant no.2 and bear the stamp of the Principal of the defendant no.1 school. All these three documents reflect the name of the plaintiff as Yogendra Prasad (father of Prabhakar). Furthermore, the Birth Certificate of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar (Ex. PW­1/I) bears the date of issue as 20.04.1999. This CS No. 6817/16 Page 13 of 15 document too reflects the name of the plaintiff as Yogender Prasad.

Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff put forth his request to the defendants for change of his name in the year 2015 and he also complied with all the procedural formalities under the Bye­Laws of the defendant no.2 in the year 2015 itself. The same is within the prescribed time limit of 10 years since issuance of the document in question.

The plaintiff's Aadhar Card i.e Ex PW­1/P mentions his name as Yogendra Prasad. The said document is stated to have been issued on 15.12.2011 i.e much before the issuance of the document in question (Ex. PW­1/L) in the year 2014. Even as such, the class XII documents of the plaintiff's son Prabhakar, issued by the CBSE and which are Ex. PW­1/N and Ex. PW­1/O, also reflect the name of the plaintiff as Yogendra Prasad. Allowing the error in the name of the plaintiff in the class X documents of his son to perpetuate would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff's son and could hamper his career prospects. Further, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 do not help the case of the defendant no.2, as they are distinguishable on facts.

Accordingly, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants, as prayed for. I also hold that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred under the Bye­ Laws of the CBSE/defendant no.2. Issue no. (i) to (iii) are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue no. (iv) : Relief In view of my findings on issue no. (i) to (iii), I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour and against the defendants.

Accordingly, a decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring the name of the plaintiff as Yogendra Prasad instead of Jogender Prasad. It is being clarified that the said declaration is for the limited purpose of the relief claimed in the present suit. Further, a decree of mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby directing the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff from Jogender Prasad to Yogendra Prasad in all their records and the document Ex. PW­1/L (of class X) issued to the plaintiff's son Prabhakar and to issue a fresh document in this regard, after making the necessary change in the name of the plaintiff. The needful be done within 30 days of this order.

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

Announced in the open Court                           (Harleen Singh)
on this 24th day of September, 2019                     SCJ/RC (East)
                                                    Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

                                                                       Digitally signed
CS No. 6817/16                                                        Page 15 of 15
                                                                       by HARLEEN
                                                 HARLEEN               SINGH
                                                 SINGH                 Location: Delhi
                                                                       Date: 2019.09.24
                                                                       16:52:54 +0530