Allowed

Anitha.G.L v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Kerala HC4 Jan 2018WP(C)/106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order declining correction of the first petitioner's name in a birth certificate. Relying on a Division Bench decision imposing a fine for delay, the judge directed the authorities to reactivate the application upon deposit of Rs. 5,000/- within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order quashed; direction to re-consider application on payment of fine Rs. 5,000/- and decision within one month.

Anitha.G.L Vs Central Board of Secondary Education — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 14TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 106 OF 2018

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 ANITHA.G.L AGED 38 YEARS, W/O BUNU J, CHANIPLAVILA VEEDU, LOURDEPURAM, KANNIRAMKULAM POST, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 524.

¶9

2 BINITHA A BINU AGED 17 YEARS, D/O ANITHA G.L, RESIDING AT CHANIPLAVILA VEEDU, LOURDEPURAM, KANNIRAMKULAM POST, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 524 REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, ANITHA G.L., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O BINU J, CHANIPLAVILA VEEDU, LOURDEPURAM, KANNIRAMKULAM POST, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 524.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SIKSHA SADAN, 17, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶13

2. THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SIKSHA SADAN, 17, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶14

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SIKSHA SADAN, 17, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶15

..2..

¶16

:2:

¶17

WP(C).No. 106 OF 2018

¶18

4. THE REGIONAL OFFICER

¶19

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK-B,

¶20

LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS, PATTOM,

¶21

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶22

5. THE JAWAHAR CENTRAL SCHOOL,

¶23

KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 524,

¶24

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶25

6. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR CENTRAL SCHOOL,

¶26

KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 524.

¶27

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-012018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

:2:

¶30

WP(C).No. 106 of 2018 (K)

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶33

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE GRADE SHEET CUM CERTIFICATE OF PERFORMANCE, SECONDARY SCHOOL
EXAMINATION (SESSION:2014-2016) OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE MIGRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 31.3.2016.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH NO.B0020167-0531417 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION DATED 14.7.2017.
EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AADHAAR CARD OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶34

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

vgd

PA TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C) No.106 of 2018

¶40

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2018

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to

¶43

quash Ext.P4 order passed by the 4^th respondent dated

¶44

7.8.2017, whereby, an application submitted by the

¶45

petitioners through the Principal of the Jawahar Central

¶46

School, Kanjiramkulam, Thiruvananthapuram, for correction of

¶47

the name of the first petitioner's mother from 'Reeja G L' to

¶48

Anitha G L was declined on the ground that the application is

¶49

belated. The issue was considered by this Court in Subin

¶50

Mohammed v. Union of India [2016(1) KLT 340] and held

¶51

that the birth certificate can be accepted as a reliable document for correction and since there is a delay, a fine of

¶52

Rs.5,000/-was imposed and directed the Central Board of

¶53

W.P.(C) No.106 of 2018

¶54

¶55

Secondary Education to carry out necessary corrections. The

¶56

yardsticks adopted in the said judgment passed by the Division Bench is applicable in this writ petition also. Therefore, I quash

¶57

Ext.P6 and direct the 4^th respondent to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner, and if there are no other legal impediments standing in the way, allow the same on the petitioner depositing a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and producing the receipt before the concerned authorities. A decision shall be taken, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶58

this judgment.

¶59

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶62

dlk/4/1/

Anitha.G.L v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha.G.L v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vazhakkad Valiya Juma Masjid Vs the District Collector

T.N.Udayablan Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Jolly Vs the District Cllector

T.P.Sajad Vs N.C.Ajith Kumar

P.M.Jose Vs the District Lottery Officer

Muraleedharan V.P. Vs State of Kerala