Court Recognizes Educational Documents as Public Record, Directs School to Rectify Father’s Name
29.10.2021 | Education News | EduLegaL | www.edulegal.org | firstname.lastname@example.org
The Court of Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City in Sri. Madhuchandra. N Vs. Cambridge English High School recognizing certificates of educational qualifications as a public record directed the school authorities to take necessary measures to correct the name of the plaintiff’s father in the educational documents.
Sessions Judge Rama Naik held:
“…there is no significance in the contention of Defendants that there is no provision to change the school records of student, and in that view, there is no reason to contend that Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit. In view of the proved facts, there would be no impediment to grant the relief as sought for by Plaintiff in the plaint;
The plaintiff filed a suit of declaration declaring his father’s name as ‘M. Narasimaiah’ and seeking directions for the defendants to incorporate the same in his school records. The plaintiff stated that in his birth certificate, driving license, pensioner medical records and in the Originating Summon OS.7487/2018 and other documents show his father’s correct name which is ‘M. Narasimaiah’, except in his educational qualification where his father’s name is mentioned as ‘Maradi Rangaswamy’.
Further, the plaintiff stated that he did not have any knowledge of wrong name entered in his school certificate because he never had received any Transfer Certificate (TC) from the schools where he completed his schooling or education.
The defendant in his defense stated that at the time of admission, the name of plaintiff’s father has been filled as ‘Maradi Rangaswamy’. Accordingly, his father’s name has been entered as ‘Maradi Rangaswamy’, and there is no fault on the part of defendant in recording the name of plaintiff’s father. It also stated that they have no power to change the school records of student as per Circular issued the Government of Karnataka, without the order of the court and it was also contended that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties.
The Court relied on earlier cases decide by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Sikkim and stated:
It is clear that Plaintiff has sought for declaration of correct name of his father, and for consequential relief directing Defendants to incorporate the same in his school records. Relief sought for by Plaintiff squarely comes under Article 113, which states that ‘right to sue accrues’. Be that as it may. In the instant case, there is a clear evidence that right to sue accrued to Plaintiff on Defendants’ failure to address the claim of Plaintiff. In that view, there is no reason to say that suit filed by Plaintiff is barred by limitation unless it is shown that he had the knowledge of the contents stated in TC.
The court further stated that Government of Karnataka is proper and necessary party to the suit.
Concluding, the court, maintaining the suit, declared that the correct name of the plaintiff’s father be rectified in the school records.
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL