Delhi District Court
Pragya Gupta vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 28 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM-RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
CNR No. DLET03-000538-2020
CS No.: 306/20
Pragya Gupta
D/o Sh. Santosh Kumar Gupta,
R/oC-7/244, NavinNiketan,
S.D.A., New Delhi -110016
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education
Through its Chairperson
"Shiksha Kendra", 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092
......... Defendant
/
Date of Institution : 17.08.2020
Date of reserving of judgment : 28.10.2022.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 28.10.2022.
CS No.: 306/20 Page 1 of 11
Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, the court shall decide the present suit.
2. Succinctly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff was born to her parents on 12.02.1998 in Shubhkamna Nursing Home at Varanasi. The mother of the plaintiff Late Ms. Reena Gupta was expired on 24.06.2003 at Varanasi. After the death of the mother of the plaintiff in 2003, the father of the plaintiff Sh. Santosh Kumar Gupta deserted the plaintiff and his sister and broke all relationship. Plaintiff and her brother then minors at the time of death of their mother in 2003 and they shifted to the home of maternal grandparents who incidentally lived in Varanasi and have been their custody since then. It is further stated that maternal grandfather of her own common sense recorded plaintiff's date of birth as 12.02.1999 as the family had no concern with the child's father. Plaintiff studies upto 5 th Standard from William Henry Smith Memorial School, Sigra, Varansi. It is further stated that maternal aunt (masi) of the plaintiff Ms. Rashmi Gupta got the plaintiff admitted in Laxman Public School, Hauzkhas, New Delhi in the year 2009 and recorded the date of birth of the plaintiff on the basis of school leaving CS No.: 306/20 Page 2 of 11 certificate containing date of birth as 12.02.1999. It is further submitted that the plaintiff cleared her 12th Standard from the Laxman Public School. Plaintiff applied for the passport on 18.12.2019 and the passport office communicated that the passport in the name of plaintiff has already been issued in 1999. The date of birth of the plaintiff in their records was 12.02.1998. The father of the plaintiff intimated the plaintiff that he got the passport issued for plaintiff in the year 1999 and also intimated that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 12.02.1998 and not 12.02.1999 as recorded by the grandfather of the plaintiff. Plaintiff approached the defendant for the correction of his date of birth in the certificates issued for 10 th and 12th standard, however, defendant refused to correct the same. It is further stated that the plaintiff was born on 12.02.1998 as per the birth certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi whereas the date of birth in the school records of the defendant is 12.02.1999 which was indicated by the maternal grandfather on the basis of his own memory.
3. The defendants filed written statement (WS) to the plaint, interalia contending that the Central Board of Secondary Education is a Society which was created pursuant to Government Notification. It is stated CS No.: 306/20 Page 3 of 11 that CBSE also known as CBSE is an autonomous society, which is fully self- financed. It is stated that 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 name/candidate father name/candidate mother name. It is further stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not tenable in view of the amended Rule 69.2 (i) of the Examination By-Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education. It is stated that no change in the date of birth once recorded in the board's record shall be made. The application for correction in date of irth duly forwarded by the Head of School along-with documents mentioned in the bye-laws 69.3(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 the application submitted after the said period of five years. Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Paramjeet Kaur Vs. CBSE" WP(C) 3484/2008. It is further stated that plaintiff has filed the present suit without any cause of action and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
4. The plaintiff has not filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant.
CS No.: 306/20 Page 4 of 11 ISSUES
5. The following issues were framed in the present matter:-
1. Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for not having any cause of action ? OPD
2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable under Rule 69.2 of the Examination Bye Laws of CBSE and is liable to be dismissed ? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for ?
OPP
5. Relief, if any.
EVIDENCE:
6. In order to prove the case, Sh. Prateek Gupta examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He replied upon the following documents :-
1. The copy of birth certificate and passport of witness is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) and Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
2. The copy of death certificate of mother of plaintiff Ex.PW1/3 is today de-exhibited and marked as Mark A.
3. The copy of 10th mark-sheet of witness is Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
4. The copy of online appointment receipt for passport issuance is Ex.PW1/5.CS No.: 306/20 Page 5 of 11
5. The copy of application in last attended school to change date of birth of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/6.
7. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 21.12.2021. Defendant did not lead DE in his defence. So, DE was closed on 08.07.2022.
8. This Court has heard the final arguments advanced by the respective counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant and the entire record is carefully perused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL POSITION:
9. The Issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.1 & 2
1. Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for not having any cause of action ? OPD
2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable under Rule 69.2 of the Examination Bye Laws of CBSE and is liable to be dismissed ? OPD
10. Both these issues are interconnected, hence this Court shall discuss and decide them together. The onus to prove both these issues was CS No.: 306/20 Page 6 of 11 upon the defendant. I am not satisfied with the argument of Ld. Counsel for the defendant that suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for not having any cause of action. As per 2018 amendment of the CBSE examination bye-laws, correction in date of birth is permitted as per school records and as per Court orders. The same is permitted within five years of declaration of result. In the present case, plaintiff passed the secondary school examination of CBSE in the year 2014. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs. CBSE & Ors." Civil Appeal No.3905/2011 passed on 03.06.2021, directed the defendant/CBSE to amend the examination bye-laws, however, same is not amended till date. So, there is cause of action against the defendant. So, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue no.3 & 4
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for ?
OPP CS No.: 306/20 Page 7 of 11
11. Both these issues are interconnected, hence this Court shall discuss and decide them together. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed that she was born on 12.02.1998 in Subhkamna Nursing Home, Varanasi. She deposed that her mother got expired on 24.06.2003. She further deposed that after the death of her mother, her father deserted the plaintiff and her brother. She further deposed that thereafter, she and her brother shifted to the home of her maternal grand parents to live in Varanasi. The maternal grandfather got her admitted in William Henry Smith Memorial School, Sigra, Varanasi in the year 2003. However, her date of birth got mentioned by his maternal grandfather as 12.02.1999. He further deposed that in the year 2009, she got shifted to Delhi to live with his maternal aunt Rashmi Gupta. His material aunt Rashmi Gupta got her admitted in Laxman Public School, Hauz Khas, Delhi in the year 2009. In that school, her date of birth got written as 12.02.1999. She cleared his 12th standard from the Laxman Public School in the year 2016.
12. Plaintiff applied for the passport on 18.12.2019 and the passport office communicated that the passport in the name of the plaintiff has already been issued in 1999 and date of birth of the plaintiff in their records was 12.02.1998. She came in contact with his father. His father told her that her CS No.: 306/20 Page 8 of 11 passport got issued in the year 1999 and intimated that her date of birth is 12.02.1998.
13. Plaintiff has proved her birth certificate and passport. These documents are exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/2. Perusal of these documents shows her date of birth as 12.02.1998. Ex.PW1/1 was issued on 18.02.1998 i.e. after the birth of the plaintiff. Ex.PW1/2 got issued on 30.09.1999.
14. Defendant has not raised any doubt regarding the genuineness or authenticity of the above stated documents. So, there is no doubt regarding the genuineness of these documents. Defendant has not raised any doubt that plaintiff is seeking change/correction in her date of birth due to some malafide or ulterior motive. Similarly, defendant failed to raise any doubt regarding the fact that plaintiff was not born in Varanasi and her mother got expired in the year 2003. The copy of death certificate of the mother of the plaintiff shows that her mother got expired on 24.06.2003 at Varanasi. Defendant has not filed any document or material which raises doubt that plaintiff has not studied in William Henry Smith Memorial School before getting admission in Laxman Public School, Delhi. Thus, plaintiff proved the circumstances due to CS No.: 306/20 Page 9 of 11 which her wrong date of birth has been mentioned in the school records as well as in class 10th & 12th documents issued by the CBSE.
15. However, even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above stated judgment further laid down that "as regards, request for change of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it pre-supposes 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 document like birth certificate, Aadhar card/election card etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith......."
"There is a legal presumption in relation to the public document in terms of section 35 of Indian Evidence 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."
16. Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, even if the stand of the defendant/CBSE is considered to be correct, still, the plaintiff is entitled for the change of her date of birth in the documents issued by the CBSE.
CS No.: 306/20 Page 10 of 11
17. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that despite the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the bye-laws have not been amended till date.
18. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed by her. Hence, relief is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that date of birth of the plaintiff be rectified in the CBSE record as "12.02.1998". Thus, defendant is directed to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff as above said in all the documents issued by CBSE. So, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
19. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as to declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of correction in date of birth as "12.02.1998".
20. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ
MANOJ KUMAR
KUMAR(Manoj Kumar)
Date:
2022.10.28
16:15:50
Announced in the Court SCJ-cum-RC, East/KKD
+0530
today 28th of October, 2022
CS No.: 306/20 Page 11 of 11