Partly allowed

Annie Korulla v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Dec 2010WP(C)/6012/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of date of birth and name spellings in school records maintained by CBSE and school authorities. Court held that belated applications under CBSE rules can be entertained and directed the school to consider the fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make fresh application to the third respondent; school directed to consider same if received and forward to Regional Officer of CBSE.

Annie Korulla Vs Union of India — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 6012 of 2009(V)

¶6

--------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------

¶9

ANNIE KORULLA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.T.C. KORULLA, THONIPURAKKAL, MEENADOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------

¶13

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI.

¶14

2. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE), NEW DELHI.

¶15

3. THE PRINCIPAL, THE BMM ENGLISH MEDIUM SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, POTHENPURAM, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

4. REGISTRAR, M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

R1 BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN(B/O) R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL R4 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

svs/

¶21

WP(C).No. 6012/2009(V)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE INDIAN EMBASSY AT AMMAN IN JORDAN.

¶25

P2: COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION 2001.

¶27

P4: COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION 2001.

¶28

P5: COPY OF THE ALL INDIA SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE 2003.

¶29

P6: COPY OF THE PETITON DATED 10/01/2009.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

svs/

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6012 OF 2009

¶35

=====================

¶36

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2010

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioner was a student of the school of which the 3^rd respondent is the Principal. The school is affiliated to the 2^nd respondent. In the school records and the certificates issued by the 2^nd respondent, her date of birth has been recorded as 26/3/1985 instead of 27/3/1985. Further petitioner also seeks correction of the name of her father and the spelling of her name. According to the petitioner, she made Ext.P6 representation to the CBSE with copy to the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter complaining that orders have not been passed on the application, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

Standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent points out that in terms of the provisions contained in the Rules framed by the 2^nd respondent, application accompanied by all supporting documents should be made to the school and that it is for the school authorities to make correction in the school records and then forward the same to the CBSE authorities.

¶40

On behalf of the 3^rd respondent, it is submitted that

¶41

:2 :

¶42

WPC No. 6012/09

¶43

they are yet to receive any application from the petitioner. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent cannot at this stage be directed to consider Ext.P6 for the reason that the same has not been received so far. In that view of the matter, the only course open is to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions;

¶44

That it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the 3^rd respondent accompanied by all supporting documents seeking correction of her date of birth, spelling of her name and correction of name of her father. It is directed that once such an application is received, 3^rd respondent will deal with the same and forward the application to the Regional Officer of the Central Board of Secondary Education at Chennai for passing orders in the matter.

¶45

Counsel for the 2^nd respondent points out that in terms of the Rules of CBSE, unless application is made within 2 years as provided in Clause 69 of the CBSE Examination Bye laws, the authorities will not be in a position to consider the application on merits. In my view, this contention raised has no merit in the light of the judgment of this Court in WA No.1948/2008 and connected cases, where it has been held that irrespective of the

¶46

WPC No. 6012/09

¶47

:3 :

¶48

time frame provided in the rules, even a belated application is liable to be entertained on merits. Therefore, I reject that contention.

¶49

Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed

¶50

of.

¶51

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶52

Annie Korulla v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annie Korulla v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Madhavanunni Vs the Tahsildar & Another

Aboobacker K.A. and Others Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary to

A.Sukumaran Nair Vs State of Kerala

V.Vijayakumar and Another Vs P.Jayakumar

Shameem K.T. Vs Mr.G.Kishore, Principal in Charge

Dr.Jamal N.P. Vs Director