Delhi District Court
Hritik Arora (Minor) vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 15 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM-RENT CONTROLLER (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
CNR No. DLET03-000646-2017
CS No.: 310/17
Hritik Arora (Minor)
S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Arora
Through his father/natural guardian
R/o H.No.E-39, Block-E,
Greater Kailash-1, Delhi
.........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
Through its Chairman
Shiksha Kendra-2, Community Center,
Preet vihar, Delhi-110092
2. The Principal
St. Collumba's School,
Ashok Place, New Delhi-110001
......... Defendants
Date of Institution : 03.05.2017
Date of reserving of judgment : 15.11.2022
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 15.11.2022
CS No.: 310/17 Page 1 of 13
Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, the court shall decide the present suit.
2. The application of the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC got dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2018.
3. Defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order vide order dated 07.09.2017. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 started appearing before the Court and when he again stopped appearing before the Court, then, defendant no.2 was once again proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.11.2018.
4. Succinctly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff appeared in the examination of Class 10th through his school i.e. St. Collumba's School, Ashok Place, New Delhi-110001 (defendant no.2) vide his Roll No.8256548 conducted by the defendant no.1/CBSE and passed the 10th Class examination from board of defendant. The defendant had issued Grade-Sheet cum certificate of performance bearing registration No. D615/65859/0003 in favour of the Plaintiff. The exact and correct mother CS No.: 310/17 Page 2 of 13 name of the plaintiff is Simran Arora instead of Seema Arora. However, inadvertently, mother name of plaintiff recorded as Seema Arora, instead of Simran Arora in grade-sheet-cum-certificate of performance of the Plaintiff, which was issued by the defendant no.1/CBSE in favour of the plaintiff after passing 10th Class examination. It is further stated that father of the plaintiff got published the correct mother name of the plaintiff in daily newspaper i.e. Jansatta on 15.08.2012 and Gazette of India dated 04.10.2014. Thereafter, father of the plaintiff approached the defendant no.2 and requested them to correct the name of the plaintiff's mother. The school of the plaintiff sent a letter dated 10.03.2016 to the defendant no.1.
5. It is stated that at the time of declaration of result of 10 th class of the plaintiff, plaintiff as well as his father came to know about the factum of the aforesaid discrepancies in the name of the plaintiff's mother. The father of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff approach to the defendants for correction/rectification in the name of the plaintiff's mother, but defendant/CBSE did not pay any heed towards the request. It is further stated that in the year of 2012 and 2014, father of the plaintiff has moved an application to the School authority for correction of the mother name of the CS No.: 310/17 Page 3 of 13 plaintiff, but the school authority has not given any receipt to the plaintiff as well father of the plaintiff.
6. It is stated that plaintiff is very ambitious and brilliant student and having bright hope for himself and he has to go abroad for study purpose. Hence, it may cause a great hurdle to the plaintiff, in case the said rectification/correction in the name of the Plaintiff's mother in the records and certificate issued by the defendant is not rectified at this stage. The mother of the Plaintiff is having Election Card/ Voter I-Card and passport in her correct name i.e. Simran Arora.
7. The defendant no.1/CBSE 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 that Central Board of Secondary Education 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 69.1 (i) of the Examination By-Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education and the amended office order dated CS No.: 310/17 Page 4 of 13 06.02.2015 and notification dated 26.06.2015. It is stated that no change in name/surname once recorded in the Board's record shall be made. However, correction in name to the extent of correction in spieling errors, factual typographical errors in the candidates name/surname, father's name/mother's name or guardian's name to make it consistent with what is given in the list of candidates (LOC) submitted by the school may be made. It is further stated that suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action and as such same is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order VII Rule11 CPC. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Sajjad Barakat Vs. CBSE" in WP(C) No.5967/2008. Written statement on behalf of defendant no.2 has not been filed.
8. Defendant no.2/school filed his written statement wherein it has been stated that at the time of admission of plaintiff, documents which were annexed with the admission form shows that earlier the name of mother of plaintiff was Mrs. Seema Arora and not Simran Arora, but from 26.02.2016, the same was changed to Mrs. Smiran Arora. It is further stated that no cause of action lies against the defendant no.2 as the same can be only be done by defendant no.1/CBSE.
CS No.: 310/17 Page 5 of 13
9. The plaintiff has not filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants.
10. Admission denial of documents got conducted and four documents of the plaintiff have been admitted by the Counsel for the defendant no.1 and same are marked as mark A-1 to A-4.
ISSUES
11. The following issues were framed in the present matter:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP
3. Relief, if any.
EVIDENCE:
12. In order to prove the case, Sh. Harish Kumar Arora was examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He replied upon the following documents :-
1. The copy of newspaper publication "Jansatta" and "Indian Express"CS No.: 310/17 Page 6 of 13
dated 15.08.2012 Ex.PW1/2.
2. Relevant pages of Gazette of India Notification for the period of 04.10.2014 to 10.10.2014 Ex.PW.1/3 (colly 2 pages).
3. The copy of Voter I-Card of his wife namely Ms. Simran Arora Ex.PW1/4 (OSR)
4. The copy of passport of his wife namely Ms. Simran Arora Ex.PW1/5 (OSR)(Colly 2 pages)
5. Grade sheet cum certificate of performance of class-X of his son namely Hritik Arora is marked as mark-A.
6. Copy of letter dated 10.03.2016 set by his son's school to CBSE is marked as mark-B.
13. Sh. Harish Kumar Arora was further examined on 07.05.2019. He brought the original of the document mark-A. Same is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1(OSR), He also proved the copy of marks statement dated 26.05.2018 exhibited as Ex.PW1/1A(OSR).
14. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 07.05.2019. Thereafter, an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC of plaintiff was allowed and PE was again re-opened. But, no further witness was examined. PE was again closed on 15.11.2022. The defendant no.1 did not lead evidence in his defence and his evidence was closed on 15.11.2022. CS No.: 310/17 Page 7 of 13
15. Defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2017 and 01.11.2018.
16. This Court has heard the final arguments advanced by the respective counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants and the entire record is carefully perused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL POSITION:
17. The Issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.1 & 2 "Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP"
"Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP"
18. Both the issues are interconnected, hence this Court shall discuss and decide them together. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff.
19. Counsel for the Plaintiff has argued that the name of the mother of the plaintiff be corrected from "Seema Arora" to "Simran Arora" for all purposes CS No.: 310/17 Page 8 of 13 in the interest of justice. It is further stated that the name of the mother of the plaintiff has been written as "Simran Arora" in all the documents i.e. Voter I- card and passport. Plaintiff got published the correct name of his mother in the daily newspapers dated 15.08.2012 and Gazette of India Notification.
20. Counsel for the defendant no.1 i.e C.B.S.E submitted that the suit is not maintainable as per Rule 69.1 (i) of the amended C.B.S.E. Bye-Laws, amended as on 25.06.2015 and 01.02.2018 which do not permit any change in name after publication of the result of the candidate.
21. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff has sufficiently proved his case and grave injustice would be caused to him in case, name of his mother is not corrected from "Seema Arora" to "Simran Arora" since documents i.e Voter I-card and passport depicts name of the mother of the plaintiff as "Simran Arora". However, in Grade sheet cum certificate of performance mentions the name of the mother of the plaintiff as "Seema Arora".
22. PW1/Harish Kumar Arora proved the copy of Voter I-Card of his wife namely Ms. Simran Arora Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) and copy of passport of his wife namely Ms. Simran Arora Ex.PW1/5 (OSR)(Colly 2 pages). Perusal of these exhibits/documents shows name of mother of plaintiff as "Simran Arora". CS No.: 310/17 Page 9 of 13
23. PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that his son Hritik Arora passed his class-X examination in the year 2016. He filed the suit to change his wife's name from Seema Arora to Simran Arora of his son's board certificate of class X. He further deposed that he moved an application to the school for change his wife's name in board certificate of his son. He voluntarily stated that school had given an application to CBSE which is mark-B on dated 10.03.2016. He further deposed that he went personally to the CBSE and CBSE refused to entertain the application. He voluntarily stated that school has not given any receipt of the application given by him. He admitted that on the application for admissin in class-I, he wrote his wife's name as Seema Arora in the application form and the same continued through the entire schooling period of his son. He deposed that in the class XII board certificate, mother's name of plaintiff is written as Simran Arora.
24. The main defence of the defendant no.1/CBSE is that as per their bye- laws, the correction in name of candidate/father/mother will be considered only within 5 years of declaration of result, provided the application of the candidate is forwarded by the head of the institution with the attested documents.
CS No.: 310/17 Page 10 of 13
25. The another defence of the defendant no.1 is that CBSE only permits the change in the name of the candidate/father/mother before the declaration of class 10th result and the name should be in consistent with the school records.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs. CBSE & Ors." Civil Appeal No.3905/2011 passed on 03.06.2021 discussed the entire bye-laws of CBSE and held that "all the applications pertaining to the correction or change of name of candidate/father/mother/date of birth be processed by the CBSE as per the directions contained in para no.170 and 171 of the judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also directed the CBSE to take immediate steps to amend its bye-laws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recoding correction/change as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it."
26. Thus, even if the plaintiff wants to get his mother's name changed in the documents issued by the CBSE, still the same can be done as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "As regards, request of "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records. CS No.: 310/17 Page 11 of 13 Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like birth certificate, Aadhar card, election card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith.
27. 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 particulars in the certificate/mark-sheet issued by the CBSE.
28. 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 has not been amended till date.
29. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed by him. Hence, relief is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that name of the mother of the plaintiff is declared to be "Simran Arora" and not "Seema Arora". Both the defendants are directed to correct the name of the mother of the plaintiff as "Simran Arora" instead of "Seema Arora" in all the documents issued by CBSE to the plaintiff.
Relief CS No.: 310/17 Page 12 of 13
30. The suit of the plaintiff is allowed and decreed as to declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of correction in the name of mother of the plaintiff as "Simran Arora" in CBSE records.
31. 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 (Manoj Kumar) KUMAR Date:
2022.11.15 SCJ-cum-RC, East/KKD 17:33:14 +0530 Announced in the Court today 15th of November, 2022 CS No.: 310/17 Page 13 of 13