Writ petition challenging erroneous entry in SSLC marklist preventing higher secondary admission. Court noted correction issued and seat reserved after interim hearing, finding no basis for further court intervention.
None. The corrected marklist was issued and seat was already reserved pursuant to the Court's earlier interim order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2016/28TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 20141 of 2016 (P)
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED ASHIQUE C.S, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY FATHER/GUARDIAN SULAIMAN, CHERIYELIL HOUSE, PARUVAKKADU, VELIYATHUNADU, ALUVA, PIN 683511
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). SMT.K.K.SHEEBA
RESPONDENT(S)/
1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001
2. THE SECRETARY BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINIATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695001
3. THE S N D P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALUVA ,REP BY ITS HEAD MASTER-683101
R1&2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 20141 of 2016 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE FORWARDING OF THE APPLICATION DTD 18/11/2015
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD 18/5/2016 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2001 KHC 3514
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
Ext.R-2
(A) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 15.6.2016.
///True copy///
P.S. to Judge
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 20141 of 2016
==================
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2016 J U D G M E N T
The case projected in this Writ Petition is as follows:- That the petitioner had appeared for the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) examination conducted by the 2nd respondent Board of Public Examinations, Government of Kerala, with registration No.251564 during March, 2015 and that the result of the SSLC examination was published on 20.4.2015. That the petitioner had passed the said examination and had also received Ext.P-1 mark list dated 20.4.2015 making him eligible for admission to the higher secondary courses. That to utter shock and dismay, in Ext.P-1 rank list received, it was noted in the subject column “ Hindi ”, the 2nd respondent had shown another subject “ General Knowledge ” and that this was wrongly included, as the petitioner's subject was “ Hindi ” and not “General Knowledge”. That the petitioner had applied for admission to Std.XI of the higher secondary course at 3rd respondent aided higher secondary school, but his application seeking admission to the said course was rejected on the ground that the subject relating to “ Hindi ” has been wrongly shown as “ General Knowledge ”. That accordingly the petitioner had lost one academic year and that he
had approached the 3rd respondent for correcting the wrong entry in Ext.P-1 wrong mark list, who had in turn forwarded his application dated 18.11.2015 to the 2nd respondent Board of Public Examinations, requesting correction in Ext.P-1 mark list, as evidenced Ext.P-2 dated 18.11.2015. That even in spite of Ext.P-2 dated 18.11.2015, the 2nd respondent had not corrected the wrong entry in Ext.P-1 mark list dated 20.4.2015 and therefore the petitioner was constrained to issue Ext.P-3 legal notice dated 18.5.2016 to the 2nd respondent, which was received by him as per Ext.P-4 on 23.5.2016. That due to the callous attitude of the 2nd respondent and due to inordinate delay caused in considering the application, the petitioner apprehended that his admission to Std.XI for the academic year 2016-17 would also be denied as the said correction in Ext.P-1 was not done. The petitioner further contends that, in the light of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Ritubala Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2001 KHC 3514, the 2nd respondent is bound to pay compensation to the petitioner, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner had instituted the above Writ Petition (Civil) on 13.5.2015 with the following main prayers:
the following additional prayers:
this Court had agreed that one seat will be kept reserved for admitting the petitioner so as to accommodate him in one of the management seats of the said course of that school.
reply affidavit to controvert the averments in the said affidavit dated 16.6.2016 filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the averments made in the said affidavit of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was bound to submit the application for correction immediately after the issuance of Ext.P-1 and at least within the month of June, 2015 itself and that he had actually submitted the application belatedly as per Ext.P-2 only on 18.11.2015 and that in spite of the direction from the 1st respondent, the petitioner had not produced the original of the SSLC certificate thereafter and that this had caused the delay, remain uncontroverted.
and on the basis of the affidavits filed by the 2nd respondent, that consistent practice is that the applicant, who receives SSLC certificate with any mistaken entries, should immediately thereafter approach the office of the 2nd respondent for appropriate correction and thereafter, the original of the SSLC certificate should also be submitted to the 2nd respondent for carrying out such correction expeditiously. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader would
thus urge that Ext.P-1 mark list is seen to have issued on 20.4.2015, but the application for correction for the said mistake was submitted only on 18.11.2015, which is admitted by the petitioner as evident from his reliance on Ext.P-2 dated 18.11.2015. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the fact that the petitioner had submitted the application for correction only belatedly on 18.11.2015 is also specifically admitted by him in Ext.P-3. Sri.A.N.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Higher Secondary School submits on the basis of the instructions that, in the light of the orders passed by this Court, the school authorities have already granted admission to the petitioner in the Std.XI Class in “Computer Science” group for the academic year 2016-17. The learned Government Pleader has also submitted
that the corrected mark list has already been issued as per Ext.R-2(a) to the school authorities and this fact is also confirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent school. Therefore, in the light of the unrebuted pleas in the counter affidavits filed by the 2nd respondent as well as specific admission made by the petitioner that he had in fact filed the application for correction only on 18.11.2015, and as the petitioner had thereafter
never bothered to ensure the forwardal of the original of SSLC certificate to the 2nd respondent, this Court is convinced that this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for considering any further steps in the matter and therefore all other prayers of the petitioner will stand declined. The corrected SSLC book has already been issued to the petitioner as per Ext.R-2(a) and the petitioner has also been granted admission to the Plus Two course in “Computer Science” group in the 3rd respondent school for the academic year 2016-17. In the light of these aspects, the Writ Petition stands disposed.
sdk+
Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
///True Copy///
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 to compel correction of exam mark sheet after a belated application.
Whether to issue direction for compensation for trauma and loss of academic year caused by administrative error in marklist.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ritubala Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.Referred¶39
Ritubala Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2001 KHC 3514
Muhammed Ashive C.S.
State of Kerala
Secretary Board of Public Examinations
S N D P Higher Secondary School, Aluva
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
