IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Sri.Anantha Adiga P.N. S/o Sri.Narasimha Adiga.P Aged about 50 years, Residing at #220, 28th Cross, 2nd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 021.
(By Sri.Vijayakumar, Advocate for M/s. B.B.Bajentri Associates) AND:
1. The Government of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, …Appellant Primary and Secondary Education Department, M.S.Building, Sachivalaya-II, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Director, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, 6th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 003.
3. The Deputy Director, Government of Karnataka, Public Education Department, Bangalore North District, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
4. Sri.Aurobindo Vidya Mandir, Represented by its Principal, #6/c, 5th Main Road, 2nd Stage, (Behind Dr.Modi Eye Hospital), Mahalakshmipura, Bangalore – 560 086.
(By Smt.Jyothi Bhat, HCGP for R1 to R3; R4 – served) …Respondents **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 R/W Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013 passed in O.S.No.1124/2013 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-12) and decree the suit filed by the appellant.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT 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:
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 been issued by defendant No.4 along with an extract of the Admission Register maintained by defendant No.4. It was also placed before the Court by learned High Court Government Pleader, a copy of the letter dated 15.01.2013 issued by respondent No.3 addressed to respondent No.4 and one more letter dated 05.01.2013 by respondent No.3 addressed to respondent No.2, wherein, respondent No.3, who is the Deputy Director of Public Instructions has after considering the request of the plaintiff for rectification of his name in the form of correction of the spelling and addition of initials to his name has accorded permission by quoting to the Circular said to have been issued by respondent No.1 – State and has also intimated the same to respondent No.2, which is Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board through its Director bringing to its notice the permission accorded to the plaintiff for rectification of his name. Despite the same, respondent No.2 is shown to have issued an endorsement dated 21.01.2013 stating that in the absence of any amendment or correction to the name of the plaintiff in the Admission Register maintained by School, the request of the plaintiff for rectification of his name cannot be considered.
12. While addressing the arguments, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 fairly submitted that the copies of the Admission Register extract, which has today been produced by her along with the memo and furnished to them by respondent No.4 – School go to show that there is correction effected in the Admission Register with respect to the name of the plaintiff as sought for by him. The same was subsequent to and as per the permission accorded to by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions i.e., respondent No.3 vide his order ¸ÀASÉå:¹5 J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹.CA.¥À.d.ºÉ.wzÀÄÝ¥Àr 323/2012-13 dated 15.01.2013. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that since at the time of issuance of the endorsement by respondent No.2 dated 21.01.2013, the said correction accorded by respondent No.3 and effected by respondent No.4 in the Admission Register maintained by the School, was not in the notice and knowledge of respondent No.2, the endorsement rejecting the rectification of the spelling and addition of initials to the name of plaintiff was rejected. However, since 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.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said submission and undertaking given by the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of the Secretary to respondent No.2 - Board be taken on record and the appeal be disposed of accordingly.
13. The 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 that the error in the endorsement rejected, was crept in by non communication of the alleged Government Order. Accordingly, 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.
14. In view of the fact that the trial Court also has observed while answering issue No.1 that the plaintiff has proved that his name is ‘P.N. Anantha Adiga’, it was for which, particular rectification in the name in the form of correction in the spelling and addition of initials, the plaintiff had sued and also considering the submission made by learned High Court Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 today, the appeal deserves to be allowed on the following lines.
15. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013 passed in O.S.No.1124/2013 is set-aside.
(iii) The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1124/2013 is allowed.
(iv) As undertaken by respondent Nos.1 to 3, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to make necessary rectification in the name of the father of the student Miss.Swathi Adiga as ‘P.N. Anantha Adiga’, which originally was shown to be ‘Ananth Adiga’, within a period of thirty days from today and to issue a rectified SSLC marks card to the student Miss.Swathi Adiga, in substitution of original previous marks card.
(v) Draw decree accordingly.
(vi) Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with lower Court records to the Court below.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-