Allowed

Gopi Krishna.P.R. v. Additional Secretary

Kerala HC28 May 2012WP(C)/6857/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this educational writ petition, the petitioner sought correction of his date of birth in school records contrary to a prior judgment of this Court. The Court quashed the impugned communication refusing the correction and directed the respondents to consider the application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P4 quashed; respondents directed to reconsider application and correct date of birth within one month.

Gopi Krishna.P.R. Vs Additional Secretary — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2012/7TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6857 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOPI KRISHNA.P.R., AGED 21 YEARS GURUMANDIRAM, ASHRAMAM ROAD, ARAMADA P.O. PUNNAKKAMUGHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

¶9

SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

ADDITIONAL SECRETARY & OFFICIATING

¶12

CHIEF EXECUTIVE & SECRETARY

¶13

COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS

¶14

PRAGATI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 47-48

¶15

NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 505.

¶16

THE CHAIRMAN

¶17

COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS

¶18

PRAGATI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 47-48

¶19

NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 505.

¶20

THE PRINCIPAL

¶21

SEVENTHDAY ADVENTISTS HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUMALA P.O. THIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 006.

¶22

R1 AND R2 BY SRI V.V.RAJA (STANDING COUNSEL)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.6857/12

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PASS CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER, DTD.16.3.2012.

¶29

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.16.3.2012.

¶30

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

¶31

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTED VERSION OF THE CHAPTER IV OF EXAMINATION REGULATIONS OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS.

¶32

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WPC NO.36281/2009, DTD.4.2.2010.

¶33

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

dsn

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶38

-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.6857 of 2012

¶39

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF MAY, 2012

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner is now studying for the final year B.Sc. Degree (Mathematics) in the M.G.College, Thiruvananthapuram. He passed 10^th standard under the Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations in April, 2007 from the 3^rd respondentSchool. The actual date of birth of the petitioner is 29.4.1991 and Exhibit P3 is the copy of the birth certificate issued by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that in the school records the date of birth has been wrongly entered as 29.4.1992. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 29.4.1991. The petitioner, even though, sought for correction, he was given Exhibit P4 communication stating that the correction cannot be made.

¶42

The petitioner relies upon Exhibit P7 judgment of this Court, which was passed in an identical situation. Therein, this

¶43

Court has held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as follows:

¶44

“ The only issue,therefore, to be considered is whether the request made by the petitioner ought to

¶45

W.P.(C)No.6857/12

¶46

-2-

¶47

have been accepted. There cannot be any doubt that in the light of the findings rendered by the Division Bench and as the facts herein are also similar, the petitioner is entitled for a direction to the respondents to have the correction of the entry in terms of the birth certificate issued by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P2. True, the bye-law viz.clause 69.2(iv) had prescribed a period of two years. Actually, it can be treated as a period fixed for the administrative convenience alone and not as a period of limitation to bar the remedy. The respondents can consider the application dehors the clause in the Bye-law.

¶48

In that view of the matter, Exhibit P5 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the findings rendered above and in the light of the relevant material, viz. the birth certificate issued from the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, Exhibit P2 herein as well as the affidavit filed by the petitioner's father, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P4. It will be open to the first respondent to verify the originals of those certificates while taking a decision regarding the correction of date of birth and to seek further information, if any. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date

¶49

W.P.(C)No.6857/12

¶50

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶51

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the ICSE.

¶52

In the light of the principle stated in Exhibit P7

¶53

judgment, Exhibit P4 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. The matter will be reconsidered by the respondents in terms of the date of birth reflected in the birth certificate produced by the petitioner and after making the necessary corrections, the certificate will be issued to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE)

¶55

dsn

Gopi Krishna.P.R. v. Additional Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Krishna.P.R. v. Additional Secretary

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

Jinanbala M.S Vs P.S. Muhammed Sagir

Nithin Raju Vs the University of Kerala

Jiljith.C.v Vs Director

Deepthi Gopinath Vs Ajithkumar, I.A.S

Sathi.K. Vs Dist.Collector, Ernakulam

Dileep Kumar Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha