Delhi District Court
Shri. Rishi Kant Kumar vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 11 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUBHI GUPTA
CIVIL JUDGE ( East), KKD COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 82/18
Date of Institution of suit : 23.01.2018
Date of reservation of Judgment : 11.05.2023
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 11.05.2023
Shri. Rishi Kant Kumar
S/o Shri Triloki Pandit
R/o RZ-I-22, West Sagar Pur,
New Delhi-110046 ............Plaintiff
versus
1.Central Board of Secondary Education RegionalOffice at PS-1-2, Institutional Area, IP Extension, Patpar ganj, Delhi-110092 Through its Director.
And its Head office:
at Sikhsa Kender, 2-Community Centre Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092 Through its Chariman.
2. Kamal Model Senior Secondary School, K-1, Ext. Mohan Garden, New Delhi-110059 Through its Principal ..........Defendants SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
1. Vide this judgment I shall decide a suit for mandatory injunction.
Brief facts of the plaint:
2. The brief facts of the plaint as alleged by the plaintiff in CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 1/10 the plaint which are necessary for the disposal of the suit are that the defendant no. 1 is a Board of Education for public and private school under the Union Government of India. It is further stated that the defendant no. 2 is a Public School duly recognized by Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration and Affiliated to CBSE/defendant no.
1. It is further stated that the plaintiff was a student of defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 in the month of February, 2014 issued admission card by mentioning the name of the plaintiff as Rishi Kant for appearing in the examination of 10 th/matriculation on 03.03.2014, 05.03.2014, 07.03.2014, 10.03.2014 and 11.03.2014 and he appeared in the 10th/matriculation examination in the year 2014 vide registration no. D114/65582/0326, Roll no. 8179484 and was declared passed vide certificate bearing serial no. 0692454 and mentioned the name of plaintiff as Rishi Kant instead of Rishi Kant Kumar on 20.05.2014. It is further stated that the plaintiff signed all the relevant papers in the school as well as in the examination as Rishi Kant Kumar. The plaintiff pointed out his class teacher as well as the Principal of defendant no. 2 regarding the incorrect name of the plaintiff. On this the class teacher and the principal of the defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff that they will add the word "Kumar" in the name of plaintiff later on in the certificate issued by the defendant no. 1 but they failed to do so. It is further stated that in the month of February, 2016 the defendant no. 1 issued admission card by mentioning the name of the plaintiff as Rishi Kant for appearing in the examination of 10+2 on 01.03.2016, 05.03.2016, 09.03.2016, 14.03.2016, 26.03.2016 and 28.03.2016. the plaintiff appeared in the 10+2 examination in the year 2016 vide Roll No. 9175750 and was declared passed in certificate vide serial no. 0662002 and mentioned the name of the plaintiff as Rishi Kant instead of Rishi Kant Kumar on 21.05.2016. The plaintiff again pointed out the principal of the CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 2/10 defendant no. 2 regarding incorrect name of the plaintiff. On this the principal of the defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff that they will add the name of plaintiff later on in the certificate issued by the defendant no. 1 but they failed to do so. It is further stated that in the month of March, 2017 the defendant no. 1 issued admission card by mentioning the name of the plaintiff as Rishi Kant for appearing in the examination of of 10+2 on 09.03.2017, 15.03.2017, 20.03.2017, 25.03.2017 and 27.03.2017. The plaintiff appeared in the 10+2 examination in the year 2017 for up-gradation of marks vide registration no. 04/05902/D1200599, Roll No. 9205412 and was declared passed in certificate vide serial no. 0255801 and mentioned the name of the plaintiff as Rishi Kant instead of Rishi Kant Kumar on 28.05.2017. The plaintiff again pointed out the principal of the defendant no. 2 regarding deletion of work "Kumar" from the name of the plaintiff. On this the principal of the defendant no. 2 suggested the plaintiff to approach the court for getting the word "Kumar" added in his name in the certificates issued by the defendant no. 1. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 issued the identity card in the correct name of plaintiff as Rishi Kant Kumar. It is further stated that the correct name of the plaintiff is Rishi Kant Kumar as mentioned in Aadhaar Card no. 4957 2119 3362 issued by the Govt. of India, New Delhi. It is further stated that the word "Kumar" is to be added after the name "Rishi Kant" mentioned in the above mentioned certificate issued by defendant no. 1 to avoid problem in future. It is also stated that the admission card of 10th/matriculation examination in the year 2014, 10+2 examination in the year 2016 and again 10+2 in the year 2017 and again in the year 2017 the plaintiff has signed as Rishi Kant Kumar. It is further stated that on 01.09.2017 the plaintiff submittd a representation to the Regional Office of CBSE/defendant no. 1 with request to add the word "Kumar" in the name of the plaintiff as CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 3/10 "Rishi Kant Kumar" instead of Rishi Kant but to no result. It is further stated that the plaintiff has left with no other efficacious remedy except to file the present suit. Hence, this suit.
3. Written statement on behalf of defendant no. 1 The defendant no. 1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff while contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is stated that CBSE frames its own rules and is governed by them and CBSE discharging the functions of conducting examination prescribing educational courses and generally maintaining the standards school education and advising the Government of India when called upon to do so, on matters pertaining to school education. The CBSE frames its own rules and is governed by them. The CBSE can only change the name of the plaintiff and this directorate has nothing to do in this matter. It is further stated that the suit of the plaintiff is beyond the period of limitation. It is further stated that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. All the averments in the plaint are denied by the defendant no. 1.
4. Replication On Behalf Of The Plaintiff Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he has reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the plaint and has denied the contents of the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed for trial on dated 02.05.2019
5. ISSUES On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 4/10 framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.05.2018.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Relief.
6. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE Plaintiff has examined himself in his evidence as PW-1 whose examination in chief is by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW-1/1(OSR) : copy of
Aadhaar card
of
the plaintiff.
(ii) Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) : copy of ID
card issued by
the defendant
no. 2/school.
(iii) Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) : copy of
Admission
card of Class
X.
(iv) Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) : copy of
Gradesheet
cum certificate
of
performance
of Class X.
(v) Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR) : copy of
Admission
CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 5/10
card of Class
XII.
(vi) Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) : copy of marks
statement of
class XII.
(vii) Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR) : copy of
admission card
of class XII.
(viii) Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) : Copy of marks
statement
dated
28.05.2017 of
class XII in
respect of the
examination
for
improvement
of marks
obtained in
class XII.
(ix) Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR) (colly) : Copy of
application/representation
dated
01.09.2017
sent to the
CBSE.
(x) Ex. PW-1/10 (OSR) (colly) : Copy of class
VIII
continuous
and
CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 6/10
comprehensive
evaluation
report issued
by defendant
no. 2/school.
(xi) Ex. PW-1/11 (OSR) : Copy of
progress report
of Class V
issued by
Nutan Bal
Vidyalaya, J-
Block, West
Sagar Pur,
New Delhi.
7. Ld.counsel for the defendant on 01.06.2022 stated that he does not want to lead DE on behalf of CBSE. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
8. Final arguments heard on behalf of the defendant.
9. My observation on the above issues as follow:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issues was upon the plaintiff.
Vide judgment of Jigya Yadav Vs. CBSE 2021 SCC Online SC 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that right to change the name is a facet of the fundamental right as granted under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and cannot be denied the right can be exercised in the manner prescribed in the directions as contained in paragraph 171 and 172 of the Judgment of Jigya Yadav (supra) which is reproduced as below:
"171. As regards request of "change" of particulars in the certificate CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 7/10 issued by the CBSE, it presupposes 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 documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when theh request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.
(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 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. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).
CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 8/10
(b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate(or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.
172. In light of the above, in exercise of our plenary juridiction, we direct the CBSE to process the applications for correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificate issued by it in the respective cases under consideration. Even other pending applications and future applications for such request be processed on the same lines and in particular the conclusion and directions recorded hitherto in paragraphs 170 and 171, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws. Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relation Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it."
In view of the law as laid down in the judgment of Jigya Yadav (supra) the stand taken by the defendant no. 1 wholly untenable and the same militates against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned judgment.
CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 9/10 The plaintiff is, therefore, directed to move an appropriate application if no application has been moved by the plaintiff till date along with the documents including the Aadhar Card and the PAN card before the CBSE. On receiving such application, the defendant no. 1 is directed to carry out the desired change in the name of the plaintiff in the marksheet and certificate within 8 weeks from the date of filing of the application. The plaintiff shall, thereupon, be entitled to file the application before defendant no. 2 along with original records who shall also make the necessary corrections in the educational certificates/records issued to the plaintiff in light of the said fresh certificate issued by the defendant no. 1.
10. Relief The suit of the plaintiff is decreed, therefore, the defendants are directed to correct the name of the plaintiff from Rishi Kant to Rishi Kant Kumar in the light of the judgment Jigya Yadav (supra). Defendant no. 1 is also directed to issue fresh academic document to the plaintiff in consonance with the corrected name of of the plaintiff.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(this order contains 10 pages and each page has been signed by me.) Pronounced in open court on 11.05.2023.
(Shubhi Gupta) Civil Judge(East)/KKD Courts CS No.82/18 Rishi Kant Kumar Vs. CBSE 10/10