Allowed

Gautham Shankar.S, v. Regional Officer

Kerala HC9 Jul 2019WP(C)/13494/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench quashed the rejection order of the CBSE regarding the petitioner's application to correct his 12th standard grade certificate. The court permitted a delay condonation fine and directed correction of records. It is a short order regarding educational certification correction.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P7; directed reconsideration of application within six weeks; imposed Rs.5000/- fine; directed school to correct records.

Gautham Shankar.S, Vs Regional Officer — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.13494 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

GAUTHAM SHANKAR.S, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. SASEENDRAN T, SIVALAYA, RAYAROTHINTAVIDA, ADAKKATHERU P.O, VATAKARA, NUT STREET, KOZHIKODE 673 104.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.P.JERIL BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EXAMINATION (CBSE), NEW NO. 3, OLD NO. 1630-A, J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI 600 040.

¶11

2 GURUKULAM PUBLIC SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, VENGINISSERY, PERALAM P.O, THRISSUR 680 563.

¶12

SRI NIRMAL S, SC -CBSE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.13494 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

On account of the inadvertent error on the part

¶17

of the 2^nd respondent school authorities, petitioner

¶18

has submitted an application before the 1^st respondent seeking correction of the grade certificate of 12^th standard. However the said application was rejected by the 1^st respondent, assigning the reason that the application is barred as per the provisions of examination bye-laws of the CBSE. It is thus challenging Ext.P7 and seeking

¶19

other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

¶20

The issue with respect to the delay in submitting application before the CBSE was

¶21

considered by a Division Bench of this Court in

¶22

Subin Muhammed Vs. Union of India [2016(1) KLT 340], and held that correction is possible after condoning delay, however imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-. I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is also entitled to get benefit of the principles of law laid down thereunder.

¶23

WP(C).No.13494 of 2019 3

¶24

In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 order

¶25

passed by the 1^st respondent is quashed and there

¶26

will be a direction to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner, taking into account

¶27

Ext.P8 Birth Certificate, at the earliest, and at

¶28

any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and ensuring that the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) is paid by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to carry out necessary correction in the school

¶29

records and forward the same to the 1^st respondent for appropriate action as directed above.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Hmh

WP(C).No.13494 of 2019 4

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EXAMI STATEMENT OF THE	ALL INDIA SENIOR SCHOOL NATION, 2006, MARK PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SCHOOL CERTIFICAT MARK STATEMENT OF	ALL INDIA SECONDARY E EXAMINATION, 2004, THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER BEARIN	PASSPORT OF THE G NO. R4197932.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER BEARIN	ADHAR CARD OF THE G NO. 716068352320.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION (PRO OF THE PETITIONER	M.B.B.S, CERTIFICATE OF VISIONAL CERTIFICATE)
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE PRINCIPAL SCHOOL ADDRESSING	LETTER DATED 06-12-2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE FROM THE 1ST RESP RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED 23-01-2019 ONDENT TO THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER IS OF URBAN AFFAIRS,	BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF SUED BY THE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶39

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Gautham Shankar.S, v. Regional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautham Shankar.S, v. Regional Officer

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

Sidhik K.M Vs Lathesh Kumar V.V

Vibin Varghese Vs the District Collector

Vysakhan Radhakrishnan, Vs Tahsildar

Geetha.T.C, Vs Union of India

P M Sainabi Vs Mohammed Y Safirulla K

N.Abraham Vs State of Kerala