Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This is an appeal by the Central Board of Secondary Education, after the suit seeking declaration and consequential mandatory injunction, filed by respondent no. 1 herein, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meham, but the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the first appellate Court, was allowed by that Court and the plaintiffs' suit decreed in his favour.

2. The facts, as taken from the judgments of the learned courts below, are that the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time of institution of the suit on 08.09.2014, sought a decree of declaration to the effect that his date of birth is 11.11.1997 and not 11.11.1999 and as such, he was entitled to get his actual date of birth recorded in the records with the present appellant, as also with the school from which he passed his examination, i.e. defendant no. 3, Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Madina, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak (present respondent no. 2).

He also sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the first three respondents, i.e. the present appellant as also its Controller of examinations, and the school aforesaid, to issue him the certificate of having completed his secondary education, with the corrected date of birth.

3. As per the plaintiff, (who, being a minor, had filed the suit through his father), he completed his matriculation examination in the year 2014, with his date of birth wrongly given as 11.11.1999 in his matriculation certificate. He contended that, in fact, as per the birth certificate issued by defendant no. 4 (respondent no. 3 herein), i.e. the District Registrar, Births and Deaths, Rohtak, his date of birth was 11.11.1997. It was submitted that since the plaintiff needed his birth certificate in the month of May 2014, he applied for it and received it the same day and thereby discovered that his actual date of birth was 11.11.1997. He therefore, requested the other defendants for a change of the date in his matriculation certificate, but with no heed paid to his request.

Consequently, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 08.09.2014.

4. Upon notice issued, defendants no. 1 and 2, i.e. the present appellant and its Controller of examinations, filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections on maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, non-joinder of parties, the plaintiff not having come to Court with clean hands and due to concealment of material facts.

On merits, it was contended that the date of birth recorded (11.11.1999), was as per the details furnished by the parents of the plaintiff, while admitting him to school and as per the forms filled in by the plaintiff himself, at the time of his examination. Hence, there was no inadvertent mistake and in any case, the plaintiff had not made any request to the Board for changing his date of birth, which even if it had been made, could not be acceded to “in view of rule applicable”.

5. The school in which the plaintiff was studying, i.e. defendant no. 3, was proceeded against ex parte.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meham:-

“1. Whether the applicant is entitled to decree of declaration as well as for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.”

7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined his father (through whom he filed the suit) as PW-1 and one Silak Ram as PW-2, who was stated to be a Computer Statistical Officer in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Rohtak. By way of documentary evidence, the plaintiff tendered his secondary school examination certificate and his birth certificate as Exs. P-1 and P-2 respectively.

8. The defendants did not examine any witness despite opportunity, but tendere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document