Disposed

Akhil S v. Central Board of Secondary Education(Regional Office)

Kerala HC23 Nov 2018WP(C)/37979/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition challenging an order declining a request to correct the petitioner's date of birth in CBSE records. Relying on prior directions, the court directed CBSE and the school to correct the records upon payment of costs and submission of applications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000 cost; School and CBSE to correct date of birth in records within 2 months.

Akhil S Vs Central Board of Secondary… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 37979 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AKHIL S AGED 27 YEARS ASHADAM,T.C.14/2036,VENPALAVATTOM,ANAYARA PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695029

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION(REGIONAL OFFICE) ANNA NAGAR ,CHENNAI,600 040,REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICER

¶11

2 BHARATHIYA VIDYABHAVAN VIVEKANANDA VIDYAMANDIR, MANVILA ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL.

¶12

SRI.S.NIRMAL,SC,CBSE FOR R1

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶15

..2..

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS,J.

¶17

===========================

¶18

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶19

===========================

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of November,2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 04.03.2017, issued by the 1^st respondent CBSE authority, declining his request

¶23

for correction of date of birth in Ext.P2 CBSE records, so as to be in tune with the entry in that regard as per Ext.P1 statutory birth certificate on the ground that the request in that regard is submitted by the petitioner beyond the prescribed time line stipulated as per the applicable guidlines.

¶24

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶25

i) “a writ of certiorari or such

¶26

..3..

¶27

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶28

other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records resulting in Exhibits P3 notice and to scrutinize and set-aside the same;

¶29

ii) a writ or such other appropriate writ or direction pass such other order, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper;

¶30

iii) allow this Writ Petition with costs.”

¶31

3. Heard Neeraj Narayanan, learned counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Nirmal learned Standing counsel for CBSE appearing for R1. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R2 school will stand dispensed with.

¶33

According to the petitioner, his date of birth has been correctly shown in Ext.P1 statutory birth certificate as 04.10.1991, and the birth was registered on 10.10.1991. But, while entering his date of birth in the school records, it is erroneously shown as 04.10.1992,

¶34

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶35

..4..

¶36

instead of 04.10.1991, and the said mistake was

¶37

also repeated in the CBSE records like Ext.P2 mark list etc. If the petitioner had actually been born on 04.10.1992 as shown in Ext.P2 CBSE mark list then it would have been virtually impossible to get his birth registered on 10.10.1991, which is anterior to the date of birth shown in Ext.P2. This factual aspect itself would give credence and reliability to the correctness of the version as shown in Ext.P1 birth certificate. More over, the entries in Ext.P1 birth certificate will carry the force of statutory presumption about its correctness.

¶38

The matter in issue is fully covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Subin Mohammed v. Union of India , reported in 2016 (1) KLT 340, wherein following directions have been in paras 39 and 41 thereof:

¶39

..5..

¶40

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶41

“39. It is contended that the future prospects of the petitioners to study or get employment abroad, will be substantially affected if the entry of date of birth in the mark sheet does not tally with that in the birth certificate. Though a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the strict sense, we are of the view that, failure to exercise jurisdiction may put the petitioners to serious hardship. Hence, to render justice, it is always open for the Court to pass appropriate orders, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. However, if disputed questions of fact arises, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the matter.

¶42

40. xxx xxx xxx

¶43

41. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate for this Court to dispose the Writ Petitions with the following directions:

¶44

i) That C.B.S.E. shall correct the entries in the mark sheet of the petitioners with reference to their corresponding birth certificates issued by the statutory authority, if the request is found to be genuine.

¶45

(ii) Genuineness of the birth certificate can be ascertained from the respective local/statutory authority/Head of the Institution or such other method, C.B.S.E. may deem it fit.

¶46

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶47

..6..

¶48

(iii) C.B.S.E. can demand in advance a consolidated fee, including all expenses for processing such applications.

¶49

(iv) Each of the petitioners shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to C.B.S.E. within a period of one month. ”

¶50

Further, this Court in the judgment dated 29.8.2017 in W.P.(C). No.20661/2017 has issued

¶51

the following directions in para 4 thereof, which reads as follows:

¶52

“4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶53

(i) The concerned authority of the school in which the petitioner has studied shall correct the name of the petitioner entered in the school records based on her birth certificate and forward the copies of the corrected school records to the CBSE, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

(ii) The CBSE shall carry out the correction sought by the petitioner based on the birth certificate and the corrected school records, on payment of Rs.5000/-, within two months thereafter.”

¶55

Taking into account the directions issued

¶56

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶57

..7..

¶58

by the Division Bench of this Court in Subin Mohammed's case (supra), reported in 2016 (1) KLT 340 as well as the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 29.8.2017 in W.P. (C).No. 20661/2017, it is ordered that the matter requires consideration afresh at the hands of the respondents. Accordingly, the following

¶59

directions are issued:

¶60

(i) The petitioner will pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- by way of demand draft to the 1^nd respondent Regional Officer, CBSE, Chennai within two weeks and will produce the said demand draft along with an application seeking correction of the date of birth in the CBSE records based on the entry of date of birth in Ext.P-1 statutory birth certificate.

¶61

(ii) The petitioner shall file a separate application for correction of date of birth to the 2^rd respondent school along with supporting documents and a photocopy of the said demand draft evidencing payment of cost of Rs.5,000/to the 1^st respondent, should also be produced before the 2^nd respondent school.

¶62

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶63

..8..

¶64

(iii) Upon receipt of such application along with supporting documents as aforestated, the Principal of the 2^nd respondent school will take necessary steps for correction of the date of birth in the school records so as to be in tune with the entry of date of birth in Ext.P-1 birth certificate and communicate the details of such correction in the school records to the 1^st respondent Regional Officer of the CBSE at Chennai.

¶65

(iv) After receipt of the abovesaid communication from the 2^nd respondent school, the 1^st respondent Regional Officer CBSE will take necessary steps for correction of date of birth in the CBSE records as well as in Ext.P-2 mark list, pass certificate, etc. so as to be in tune with the entry of date of birth in Ext.P-1 birth certificate.

¶66

(v) The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the respondents without much delay preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶67

(vi) The abovesaid directions are subject to the specific condition that the petitioner should pay cost to the 1^st respondent Regional Officer,

¶68

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶69

..9..

¶70

CBSE, as directed above, failing which the abovesaid directions will stand automatically vacated without any further orders from this Court.

¶71

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶74

PR/23.11.2018

¶75

W.P.(C)No.37979 of 2018

¶76

..10..

¶77

APPENDIX

¶78

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶79

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS BEARING NO B0020167-91101030788 DATED 7.10.2014 TO THE PETITIONER

¶80

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARK STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE CBSE DATED 27.5.2008 BEARING REG NO.4143069 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶81

EXHIBIT P3

¶82

THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Akhil S v. Central Board of Secondary Education(Regional Office)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil S v. Central Board of Secondary Education(Regional Office)

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

Lalitha C Vs the National Highway Authority

Dr. Riyaz Ahammed Vs the Union of India

Dr.Razia Salam Vs the Union of India

Manoli Nafeesa, Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer

A.C.Koyakidavu Vs Settlement Officer

Ramakkalmedu Green Energy (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala