Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 2063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
Sri. Anantha Adiga P.N. – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 20 of 2015
Decided On : 02-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. Vijayakumar, M/s. B.B. Bajentri.
For the Respondent: Smt. Jyothi Bhat.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Notice - Suit seeking correction of his name in the form of correction - Whether the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed as prayed - Whether judgment and decree under appeal deserves any interference at hands of Court - Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. against the present respondents in Court of learned XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, City summary of case of plaintiff in trial Court was plaintiff and father and mother of one at time of institution of suit was studying in Pre-University Course - She completed Secondary School Leaving Certificate examination in the year - Plaintiff's name was wrongly entered as 'Ananth Adiga' by omitting initial 'P.N.' and alphabet 'a' at the end of the name - Plaintiff made a representation to the defendant rectification of his name in his daughter's school records. Defendant No.4 wrote a letter to defendant defendant No.2 rejected the request of defendant plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit – Held, Admission Register with respect to the name of the plaintiff as sought for by him. The same was subsequent to and as per permission accorded to by Deputy Director of Public Instructions i.e., respondent No.3 vide his Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that since at the time of issuance of endorsement by respondent said correction accorded by respondent No.3 and effected by respondent No.4 in Admission Register maintained by the School, was not in the notice and knowledge of respondent No.2, the endorsement rejecting rectification of the spelling and addition of initials to the name of plaintiff was rejected. such a permission was granted for rectification in accordance with law, respondent No.2 is prepared to carry out the required rectification in the SSLC marks card - Secretary of respondent No.2 -Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board by name, Sri. Kemparaju, as identified by learned High Court Government Pleader is also present before the Court and makes submission on the lines what the learned High Court Government Pleader has made and submits error in the endorsement rejected, was crept in by non communication of the alleged Government Order - Rectification as sought for by the plaintiff, since the same has come to the notice of respondent No.2, they are prepared to effect in the records - Appeal is allowed
Key Points: - The plaintiff sought rectification of his name in his daughter's school records and SSLC marks card (rectification of spelling and addition of initials) (!) (!) . - The trial court dismissed the suit; on appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court judgment, and allowed the suit for rectification (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court directed the respondents to rectify the name from Ananth Adiga to P.N. Anantha Adiga in the father’s name, and to issue a rectified SSLC marks card within 30 days (!) . - The High Court noted that the Deputy Director of Public Instructions had granted permission for rectification and that endorsement rejecting rectification was due to non-communication of the Government Order, and that the Board is prepared to effect the rectification (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court directed decree to be drawn and records transmitted to the lower court (!) (!) . - The case involves existence of permission for rectification by the Deputy Director and communication issues affecting endorsement by the Board (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed; the suit is declared to be allowed and the judgment of the trial court set aside (!) (!) . - The rectification relates to the name of the father of the student Swathi Adiga, changing from Ananth Adiga to P.N. Anantha Adiga (!) (!) .
What is the scope of relief sought for rectification of a student’s name in school records?
What is the court’s ruling on whether the plaintiff’s suit for name rectification should be decreed?
What are the directions issued by the court to rectify the name in the student’s records and SSLC marks card?
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal, whose suit seeking correction of his name in the form of correction of spelling in his name and adding of initials to his name in the form of rectification in the school records of defendant No.4, in the trial Court came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff in the trial Court has preferred this appeal.
2. The present appellant as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 1124/2013 against the present respondents in the Court of learned XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-12) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "trial Court'). The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the plaintiff and one Smt. Prathima Adiga are the father and mother of one Kum. Swathi Adiga, who at the time of institution of suit was studying in Pre-University Course. She completed Secondary School Leaving Certificate examination in the year 2011. The plaintiff's name was wrongly entered as 'Ananth Adiga' by omitting initial 'P.N.' and alphabet 'a' at the end of the name. The plaintiff made a representation to the defendant No.4 for rectification of his name in his daughter's school records. Defendant No.4 wrote a letter to defendant No.2. However, the said defendant No.2 rejected the request of defendant No.4. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit.
3. In response to the summons, it is only defendant Nos.1 to 3, who have filed their written statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their written statement contended that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable since, the same has been filed after long delay. It is further contended that as per the Circular issued by the Commissioner, Education Department, there is no provision to change of name.
4. Based on the pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his name is P.N. Anantha Adiga?
2. Whether the defendants 1 to 3 prove that the suit is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction?
5. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P9. Neither any witness was examined, nor any documents were marked as exhibits from defendants' side. After hearing both sides, the trial Court in its impugned judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013, while answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is against the said judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
9. In the light of the materials placed before this Court, the following points arise for my consideration in this appeal:-
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed as prayed?
2. Whether the judgment and decree under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court?
10. Learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments submitted that even though the trial Court has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and held that the plaintiff has proved that his name is P.N. Anantha Adiga. However, for no valid reason, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
11. During the hearing of this matter, by its order, this Court had permitted both sides to produce a copy of the documents of the relevant school records for a perusal by this Court. Accordingly, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 through memo dated 02.12.2019 has filed the attested copy of the application for admission shown to have been filed by the plaintiff before defendant No.4 and covering letter said to have b
