Allowed

Amal Kareem v. the Central Board of Secondary Education

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016WP(C)/34008/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for correction of date of birth and father's name in CBSE school records which were erroneously recorded. Single Judge held that birth certificate raises a presumption of correctness and ordered school to allow corrections.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to correct the date of birth and father's name in school records and forward them to the 1st respondent for necessary order.

Amal Kareem Vs the Central Board of Secondary… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34008 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AMAL KAREEM, D/O. ABDUL KAREEM V., VAZHAYIL HOUSE, CHANDAKKUNU P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶9

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY, REGIONAL OFFICE, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST) CHENNAI-600 040, TAMIL NADU.

¶12

2. THE FATIMAGIRI ENGLISH SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, NILAMBUR R.S. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 330.

¶13

R BY SRI.K.M.ANEESH, SC, C.B.S.E. R BY SRI.ADARSH KUMAR, SC, C.B.S.E.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rvs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 34008 of 2016 (A)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ALL INDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION, 2005, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24-05-2005.
EXT.	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S MARKS STATEMENT OF THE ALL INDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION, 2005.
EXT.	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SCHOOL TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.09.2016.
EXT.	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 30.09.2016 FORWARDED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION, BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SCHOOL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SCHOOL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER MAINTANED AT THE 2ND RESPONDENT SCHOOL.
EXT.	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTITICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS ON 23.09.2016.
EXT.	P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF PETITIONER'S FATHER, ABDUL KAREEM, V. ISSUED ON 19.09.2016.
EXT.	P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. CBSE/RO(M)/ CORRN/REJN/4852/2016 DATED 07.10.2016 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

rvs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C)No.34008 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner has passed All India Secondary School

¶30

Examination (12^th standard) held by the 1^st respondent in March, 2005, evident from Ext.P1. The certificate as well as in the mark statement, date of birth of the petitioner is mistakenly entered as 13.08.1989. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P8 certificate issued by the Births and Deaths authority, the date of birth is correctly shown as 13.08.1988. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application, seeking to correct the date of birth as well as father's name before the 2^nd respondent school. Second respondent accordingly forwarded the same as per Ext.P5 covering letter. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P6 application in the prescribed format. However, the application was rejected as per Ext.P10 dated 7.10.2016 holding that correction was not sought for as provided under Clause 69.2(iv) of the examination by-

¶31

W.P.(C)No.34008 of 2016 2

¶32

laws of the 1^st respondent. It is in this background, seeking appropriate direction this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶34

The sole question to be decided is whether any interference is required in Ext.P10 order passed by the 1^st respondent. With respect to the correction of date of birth, a Division Bench of this court had occasion to consider the issue vis-a-vis the provisions of Examination bye-laws of the 1^st respondent Board, in Subin Mohammed v. Union of India [2016(1) KLT 340] and held that, once an entry is made in the register maintained by the competent authority in accordance with the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (Kerala), it raises a presumption of correctness to the date of birth entry. Taking into account the fact situations and the circumstances thereunder, the Division Bench of this Court directed the competent authority to correct the date of birth by imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-. I think the same principle can be adopted to the facts and

¶35

W.P.(C)No.34008 of 2016 3

¶36

circumstances of this case also.

¶37

In that view of the matter, I direct the 2nd respondent to carry out necessary corrections in the school records with respect to the date of birth and name of the father as specified above and forward the same to the 1^st respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of the same by the 1^st respondent, 1^st respondent shall carry out necessary correction as specified above with respect to the date of birth and name of the father and issue necessary orders accordingly within three months thereafter.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶40

[ True copy]

¶41

P.A. to Judge

¶42

rmm/25/10/2016

Amal Kareem v. the Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Kareem v. the Central Board of Secondary Education

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

Aleyamma Varghese Vs Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Mohammedkutty Vs District Collector

Mohammedkutty Vs State of Kerala

Geordy K.Abraham Vs Public Works Department

M.T George Vs the Manager, Uco Bank

M/S.Etz Industries Vs State of Kerala