Disposed

M.K.Mohammed Jabir, v. the Union of India

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019WP(C)/14587/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order declining correction of father's name in a CBSE certificate. Court held delay condonable by fine but directed petitioner to reapply as sought name differed from birth certificate. Liberty granted to submit fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit fresh application for correction of father's name within two weeks. If received, authority shall dispose within six weeks upon payment of Rs.5,000 fine.

M.K.Mohammed Jabir, Vs the Union of India — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 14587 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M.K.MOHAMMED JABIR, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.M.K.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, RESIDING AT BANNATHA KADAVU HOUSE, MOGRAL, KASARAGOD, PIN- 671231.

¶8

BY ADVS. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS SRI.SARUN RAJAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN110001.

¶11

2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2-COMMUNITY CENTRE, SHIKSHA KENDRA, CBSE HEADQUARTERS, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110062.

¶12

3 THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW NO.3, OLD NO.1630 A, J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI, PIN- 600040.

¶13

4 THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BLOCK-B, 2ND FLOOR, L.I.C DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS, PATTOM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695004.

¶14

5 THE PRINCIPAL, C.H.MOHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SOORAMBAIL, KASARAGOD, PIN-671321.

¶15

R1 SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA R2 TO R4 SRI.NIRMAL, STANDING COUNSEL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 14587 of 2019 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶20

challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the 3^rd respondent declining correction of the father's name sought for by the petitioner in the certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education

¶21

on the ground that the application is belated as well as there is glaring difference in the request sought for as well as the Birth Certificate submitted for this purpose.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings and documents on record. So far as the question of delay is considered, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the said issue and held in

¶24

Subin Muhammed Vs. Union of India [2016(1) KLT

¶25

340], that correction is possible after condoning the delay by imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said

¶26

issue can be tackled accordingly. However, I find

¶27

WP(C).No. 14587 of 2019 3

¶28

from Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner

¶29

that, the correction sought for has glaring difference with Ext.P3 Birth Certificate, wherein the name of the petitioner's father is shown as Mohammed Haneefa M.K and in the correction

¶30

application, the correction sought is Mohammed Haneefa.

¶31

In that view of the matter, petitioner may

¶32

have to submit a fresh application before the 3^rd respondent through the school concerned. Therefore, petitioner is given the liberty to submit a proper application before the 5^th respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if any such application is received, the same shall be forwarded without any further delay to the 3^rd respondent, who shall consider the application in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application also on condition that petitioner remits the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards fine as specified above.

¶33

WP(C).No. 14587 of 2019 4

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Hmh

WP(C).No. 14587 of 2019 5

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE.	PETITIONERS 10TH PASS
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED ON BEHALF	ORDER DATED 04.07.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE.	PETITIONER'S BIRTH
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FATH	AADHAR CARD OF THE ER.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISS COMMISSION OF IND	PETITIONER'S FATHERS UED BY THE ELECTION IA.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE THE TAHASILDAR, M THAT THE PERSON N HANEEFA" AND "M.K THE SAME.	CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ANJESHWARAM, STATING AMED "M.K.MOHAMMED .HANEEFA" ARE ONE AND
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE 20.05.2019 SUBMIT RESPONDENT TO THE	APPLICATION DATED TED BY THE 5TH 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

M.K.Mohammed Jabir, v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Mohammed Jabir, v. the Union of India

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

Kala Raju Vs the Cathaloic Syrian Bank

Rajan K.Nair Vs Francis O.M.

P.Anilkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Thomas.N.J Vs State of Kerala

Latha, Vs Raju.v.R.

Divya Devaraj Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited