Disposed

Mohammed Faizal S. v. the Director

Kerala HC27 Nov 2013WP(C)/14626/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that petitioners aggrieved by incorrect dates of birth in school records must first approach school authorities for correction, which shall then be forwarded to the Competent Authority for final verification and order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach school authorities for correction of records and forward corrected details to the 2nd respondent for final order to be passed within three months.

Mohammed Faizal S. Vs the Director — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 14626 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. MOHAMMED FAIZAL S. S/O.SULAIMAN, NAZIRA MANZIL, KOLACHAL IDINJAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. MUHAMAD VASEEM S/O.ABDUL VAHAB, 'MINARAM', OZHUKUPARA PERINGAMMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

SRI.A.YAHIAKHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY

¶14

REGIONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, J-BLOCK ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU.

¶15

3. THE PRINCIPAL

¶16

CRESCENT CENTRAL SCHOOL, PERINGAMMALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695563.

¶17

BY SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC, CBSE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 14626 of 2013 (C)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE AND MARK LIST ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27-5-2008.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE AND MARK LIST ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER 19-5-2010.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12-3-2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE R3.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL ISSUED BY R3 TO THE R2.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 6-11-2004 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTORAL IDENTITY CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-5-2013 ISSUED TO R3.

¶31

EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11-2-2013 ISSUED BY R3 TO R2.

¶32

EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4-1-2013 PASSED IN WPC 14457/12 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

\ TRUE COPY \

PA TO JUDGE

jm/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 14626 of 2013

¶39

Dated, this the 27^th day of November, 2013

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the inadvertent mistake which has crept in the school records/certificates showing the date of birth of the 1^st petitioner as 07.04.1992 in place of

¶42

'04.07.1991' and the the date of birth of the 2^nd petitioner as 30.05.1993 instead of 30.12.1991. Further the name of the 2^nd respondent is also wrongly noted as 'Mohammed Vasim' instead of ' Mohammed Vaseem ' which sought to be corrected by filing Ext.P9 representation before the 3^rd respondent school, which was forwarded by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd respondent for necessary relief.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even though the petitioners have approached the school authorities/respondent No.3 along with a copy of the birth certificates (produced as per Ext.P3 & P6 respectively) and wherein, the date of birth has been correctly given as '04.07.1991' and 30.12.1991 respectively, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs.

¶44

The learned standing counsel for the C.B.S.E. submits that, by virtue of the mandate under the Bye-laws of the C.B.S.E, the petitioners have to approach the school authorities and get his

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 14626 of 2013

¶47

school records corrected showing the actual date of birth as '04.07.1991 and 30.12.1991' . Thereafter, the application has to be got forwarded along with the corrected date of birth as certified by the school authorities to the first respondent/competent authority, on which event, the same will be considered and appropriate steps will be pursued to redress the grievance of the petitioner.

¶48

In the above circumstances, the petitioners are left to approach the school authorities/2^nd and 3^rd respondents and get his school records, based on the relevant materials and as verified by the concerned local authority; simultaneously causing the same to be forwarded to the second respondent/competent authority as prescribed for taking further steps. On receipt of such proceedings, the matter shall be considered and final orders shall be passed by the 1^st respondent/competent authority in accordance with law, particularly, in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1948/2008 holding that the bar of 'two years' (now stated as five years) as referred to in the 'Bye law' will not stand in the way of causing the date of birth to be corrected in genuine cases. Final orders as above, shall be passed by the 1^st respondent/competent authority, after conducting verification with the concerned authority, if necessary, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 14626 of 2013

¶50

¶51

the date of receipt of the proceedings as aforesaid.

¶52

The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the respondents for further steps.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶54

Sd/

¶55

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶56

jm/

¶57

\ TRUE COPY \

¶58

PA TO JUDGE

Mohammed Faizal S. v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Faizal S. v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Kumarickal Vs State of Kerala

M/S Kallarackal Resorts (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs the District Geologist, Thrissur

Vineesh Vs M.K.Kaladharan

All Kerala Chemist and Drugist Association Vs State of Kerala

Cheelangatt Pushparaj Vs Southern Railway