Prince Kumar Age-16 Years (Minor) vs J&K Board Of School Education
2025 Latest Caselaw 1046 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Prince Kumar Age-16 Years (Minor) vs J&K Board Of School Education on 27 February, 2025

 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU
                                            Reserved on  : 20.02.2025.
                                            Pronounced on: 27.02.2025

WP(C) No. 1191/2024
CM No. 3041/2024

Prince Kumar Age-16 years (Minor)                        .....Petitioner(s)
S/O Sh. Babu Ram,
Through Adoptee Father
Babu Ram Age 65 years
S/O Sh. Puran Chand
R/O Village Allah
Tehsil Arnia, District Jammu-181131

                Through: Mr. Pawan K Kundal, Advocate.

                            Vs

J&K Board of School Education
Through Secretary
Rehari Colony, Jammu-180005.

                                                             ..... Respondent(s)

                Through: Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate.



CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

                                 JUDGMENT

01. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner

through one Babu Ram, claiming him to be his adoptee

father, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking direction to the respondent to change his

parentage from natural parents to adoptee father and

mother in its record and issue fresh registration

certificate, marks card of 10th, 11th and 12th class,

indicating parents name of his adoptee parents.

02. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct

perspective, it is deemed appropriate to give the material

facts in brief:

2.1 That the petitioner was adopted by Babu Ram and his

wife Kanta Devi from the natural parents of the petitioner

who have voluntarily and out of free will gave their

consent to give petitioner in adoption and handing

over/taking over ceremony was also duly performed; that

after the adoption, the petitioner used to live with the

adoptee parents, who got him admitted in school from

childhood; that after the adoption of the petitioner was

executed, the adoptee father executed Will Deed in favour

of the petitioner of his all moveable and immovable

properties including land measuring 08 kanals 08 marlas

under khasra Nos. 140, 135, 136, 264 and 267 situated

at Village Karyal Kalan and village Allah, Tehsil Arnia,

District Jammu and one shop raised in khasra No. 590 at

village Allah Tehsil Arnia. An Adoption Deed, to this

effect, was duly registered before Sub Registrar, Jammu

South-I on 21st day of December, 2021 at Bishnah

between the natural parents and adoptee parents.

2.2 It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner also

obtained caste certificate and domicile certificate from the

jurisdictional Tehsildar at Arnia in which name of the

father of the petitioner has been shown as Babu Ram.

The petitioner has also obtained pan card and aadhar

card in which also the name of the father of the petitioner

has been shown as Babu Ram; that the petitioner had

studied in Kundan Shiksha Academy, Allah from Ist to

5th Class, Janta Memorial School, Adhlehar in 6th class,

in Alpha Mission School, Allah in 7th Class and 11th Class

from Government Higher Secondary School, Allah; that

the adoptee father of the petitioner approached the

schools for the change of the petitioner's parentage from

natural parents to adoptee parents but the incharge

school informed him that since the details/particulars

have been sent to the J&K Board of School Education,

Jammu in 9th and his all registration records are

maintained accordingly by the respondent and the

petitioner has to approach the respondent-Board of

School Education.

2.3 It is urged in the petition that when the petitioner

approached the respondent-Board for change of the name

of parentage from natural parents to adoptee parents, the

respondent-Board informed the petitioner that they will

not change the name of the natural parents to adoptee

parents despite filing the necessary application along

with Adoption Deed; that since the respondent is not

affecting necessary change in their record and issuing

fresh registration certificate, marks card of 10th, 11th and

12th class due to which the petitioner is suffering

irreparably; that the rules framed by the respondent-

Board allows correction/change where warranted by the

respondent-Board for the change of the name of the

parents.

2.4 It is further urged in the petition that on the direction of

the respondent-Board, the matter was also published on

15.11.2023 in State Times Newspaper that if anybody

has any objection with respect to the change/correction

of the parentage from natural parents to adoptee parents,

may lodge the same before the Joint Secretary,

Certificates and Joint Director, J&K Board of School

Education, Jammu within seven days but no such

objection is raised by any person till date. Despite that

the respondent-Board did not agree to issue the fresh

certificate by correcting their record; that the name of the

minor is also entered in the ration card of the petitioner

by the Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Public

Distribution Jammu; that in case the respondent-Board

did not affect the correction in its record and issue fresh

certificates of the petitioner with adoptee parents of the

petitioner, the whole career of the minor will be spoiled

and he will not be in a position to apply in any of the

vacancies advertised by the defence forces or other civil

departments and it will affect the whole career of the

minor Prince Kumar which will be in violation of the

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

03. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed the

objections wherein it is stated that the alleged Adoption

Deed registered before the Sub-Registrar Jammu South-1

on 21.12.2021 is a matter of record and its validity is

required to be proved by the petitioner before this Court;

that as per the record of answering respondent Board,

the parentage of the petitioner provided by the concerned

institution in the shape of examination form of 10th class

under Roll No. 160112056 session Annual Regular 2023

summer zone JD has been shown as Ashok Kumar and

mother's name as Suresh Kumari. The said particulars of

the petitioner have been accordingly shown in his marks

certificates as well without any error or mistake by the

answering board; that in case the petitioner was adopted

by one Babu Ram in the month of December, 2021 as

alleged by the petitioner, then the petitioner should have

brought this fact along with documentary evidence to the

knowledge of concerned institution which has provided

the particulars of the petitioner in the year 2023 for 10th

class examination which has not been done by the

petitioner for the reasons best known to him.

04. It is submitted in the objections that the

candidate/petitioner Prince Kumar has passed his 10th

class examination from the respondent Board in the year

2023 and with same particulars his examination form for

11th class examination form has also been provided to the

respondent Board through online process for the session

Annual Regular 2024 soft zone JD; that the petitioner

has not applied with respondent Board for correction of

his recorded particulars as required in terms of Board

regulations as reported by the concerned section of the

Board as per records. Moreover, as per Board Regulations

there is no provision for correction of recorded parentage

on the basis of an Adoption Deed, as such, the

respondent Board in terms of Board Regulations cannot

correct his recorded particulars on the basis of registered

Adoption Deed, as such, in absence of any such rule, the

answering respondent Board cannot be compelled by the

petitioner to make necessary corrections in his recorded

particulars viz with regard to his parentage; that as per

the report submitted by the concerned section of the

Board, no case file of the petitioner has been received for

correction of his parentage in the certificate section of the

Board.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner was adopted by adoptee parents when he was

fifteen years of age vide Adoption Deed which was

registered on 21.12.2021 between the natural parents

and adoptee parents. He further argued that in all the

documents including Domicile Certificate and Caste

Certificate, the name of the father of the petitioner has

been shown as Babu Ram, except Marks Cards of 10th,

11th and 12th classes. Lastly, he has argued that the

respondent-Board be directed to affect the correction in

the record and issue fresh certificates of the petitioner

with adoptee parents of the petitioner so that the

petitioner would be in a position to apply in any of the

vacancies advertised by the defence forces or other civil

departments.

06. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, ex adverso,

argued that there is no provision for correction of

recorded parentage on the basis of an alleged Adoption

Deed, as such, the respondent Board in terms of Board

Regulations cannot correct petitioner's recorded

particulars on the basis of registered Adoption Deed, as

such, in absence of any such rule, the answering

respondent Board cannot be compelled by the petitioner

to make necessary corrections in his recorded particulars

viz with regard to his parentage. He has also argued that

the petitioner has not applied to the respondent-Board

for correction of his parentage in its record as alleged by

the petitioner in his petition. Had he applied for it, the

respondent-Board would have passed the consideration

order in terms of the Board Regulations. Lastly, he has

argued that the petition be dismissed.

07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

08. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Prince Kumar has

been adopted by the adoptee parents vide valid Adoption

Deed which was registered on 21.12.2021 between the

natural parents and adoptee parents of the petitioner. It

is the case of the petitioner that despite requesting for

change of parents' name from natural parents to adoptee

parents in the marks card of 10th, 11th and 12th class, the

respondent-Board of School Education has refused to

correct the same.

09. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that

correction sought by the petitioner cannot be made on

the ground that there is no provision for correction of

recorded parentage on the basis of an alleged Adoption

Deed deserves to be rejected on the ground that in terms

of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance

Act, 1956, whenever any document registered under any

law is produced before any court purporting to record an

adoption made and is signed by the parties, the court

shall presume that the adoption has been made in

compliance with the provisions of this Court unless and

until it is disproved. For purposes of present

controversy, Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act, 1956 is relevant and reproduced

herein:-

"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption. -

Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved."

It is the admitted fact that the Adoption Deed in question

is a valid document which has not been

disproved/disqualified.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon a three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in

case titled "Jigya Yadav (Minor) (through

Guardian/Father Hari Singh) vs. C.B.S.E (Central

Board of Secondary Education & Ors) reported in 2021

AIR (SC) 4775, wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs

170 and 171 has drawn conclusions by stated

mechanism and passed directions 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.

11. The petitioner, as per the stand taken by the respondent,

has not formally applied for correction of his parentage

and that had he applied, it would have been certainly

dealt with and decided by the competent authority in the

respondent-Board. It means that respondent-Board is not

averse to consider the matter at the appropriate level, if

applied for by the petitioner.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and discussions

made hereinabove and also in view of Section 16 of the

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and three

Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court (supra), this

petition is allowed providing as under:

(i) The petitioner shall apply for the correction of his parentage, in terms of the Regulations therefor within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.

(ii) The respondent-Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for change of parentage from natural parents to adoptee parents in its record and issue fresh certificates within the statutory period.

13. Disposed of, accordingly, along with connected

application(s).

(M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU 27.02.2025 Naresh/Secy

Whether order is speaking: Yes/No Whether order is reportable: Yes/no