Correction of parents' names in a CBSE certificate was sought on the basis of a corrected birth certificate. The court dismissed CBSE's appeal, leaving intact the direction to carry out the corrections within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942
WA.No.1155 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14,10,2019 IN WP(C) 26131/2019(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
SRI. S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI FOR R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 2 :
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2020
S.Manikumar, CJ
Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment made in W.P. (C) No.26131 of 2019 dated 14.10.2019, by which the writ court issued the following directions:-
“In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to carry out the corrections requested by the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.”
The name of the writ petitioner's father is Hashim A and his mother's name is Shahina Begum D.S. At the time of birth of the writ petitioner, both the father and mother of the writ petitioner were abroad. The names of petitioner's father were recorded in his birth certificate on the basis of their passports. Accordingly, in Ext.P3 birth certificate of the writ petitioner, father's name is shown as 'Hashim Abdulla' and mother's name is shown as “Shahina Duneera”. Based on Ext.P3 birth certificate, names of petitioner's parents were shown in Ext.P4 certificate dated 29.05.2018 of
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 3 :
Secondary School Examination, 2018. The writ petitioner has obtained Ext.P5 corrected birth certificate on 12.10.2018. Based on Ext.P5, the petitioner carried out correction of parent's name in school records and then applied for correction of parents' name through school to the 2nd respondent. The second respondent, through Ext.P6 communication dated 24.01.2019 rejected his application on the ground that the school records were not found in consonance with the desired correction in parent's name as per Rule 69.1(ii) of the Exam Bye Laws. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 3460 of 2019 before this Court and this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 06.12.2019 set aside Ext.P6 order and directed the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders taking note of Ext.P5 corrected birth certificate. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent/2nd appellant issued Ext.P8 order rejecting the request of the writ petitioner. Hence this appeal.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 4 :
certificates consistent with the school records. The correction sought by the writ petitioner does not fit in the category of typographical error as there is considerable change in the name of father of the candidate.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 5 :
is recorded as Hashim Abdulla and Shahina Duneera respectively.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 6 :
“20. The first question to be considered in these batch of writ petitions is with reference to the authority of CBSE to reject an application for correction date of birth in the mark sheets on the ground of limitation.
“3. One of the respondents, a student, having taken his education in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, passed the matriculation examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, in the year 1991. Thereafter, he passed higher secondary examination and then BSc examination in the year 1998. When he filed the writ petition, he was undergoing a course of study in computers. At that point of time, on 12-10-1999, he moved an application to the Board complaining that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records as 30-5-1974, while his actual date of birth was 16-8-1975. The mistaken date of birth, as forwarded by the school, had crept into the admit card issued by the Board. The writ petitioner student pleaded that he did not realise the importance of the correct date of birth being entered into the school records, and therefore, he did not also realise the implications thereof until he was prompted in moving the application. The application moved by the respondent to the Principal of the school, was forwarded by the latter to the Board. The Principal indicated that the age of the respondent was entered as 16-8-1975 in the admission register and other school records, but it was by mistake that while filling the form of the Board examination, the date of birth was wrongly entered as 30-5-1974. The Principal described the mistake as “clerical” and recommended for its correction. As the Board did not take any decision on the application, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 7 :
preferred by the respondent. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the relief sought for by the respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus to the Board. Feeling aggrieved, the Board has filed these appeals by special leave.”
Though the Supreme Court did not interfere with the decision to effect necessary correction as directed by the High Court, the question of law was decided as under:
“10. Nobody can claim a right to have an entry corrected in a certificate solemnly issued by an educational institution, that too the one enjoying the status of a statutory Board under the Act. The right of the applicant to have an error or mistake corrected is accompanied by a duty or obligation on the part of the Board to correct its records and the certificate issued by it. Not only it is a corresponding duty or obligation, it has also to be perceived as a power exercisable by the Board to correct an entry appearing in the certificate issued by it. People, institutions and government departments, etc. — all attach a very high degree of reliability, near finality, to the entries made in the certificates issued by the Board. The frequent exercise of power to correct entries in certificates and that too without any limitation on exercise of such power would render the power itself arbitrary and may result in eroding the credibility of certificates issued by the Board. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the contention that the applicants seeking correction of entries in such certificates have any such right or vested right.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 8 :
application through the Inspector of Schools who would verify the school records and submit report to the Board so as to exclude from consideration the claims other than those permissible within the framework of Regulation 8. Power to pass order for correction is vested on a high functionary like Secretary of the Board. An inaccuracy creeping in at the stage of writing the certificates only, though all other prior documents are correct in all respects, is capable of being corrected within a period of three years from the date of issuance of certificate.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 9 :
recommendations of all the Committees are placed for approval before the Governing Body of the Board. The Controller of Examinations is assigned with all matters concerning conduct of examinations and all matters connected therewith. Examination Rules thus formulated are for the proper conduct of the examination and publication of results. Therefore, every student who writes the examination is bound to comply with the Examination Rules as well.
“69.2 No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for the admission to Examination to the Board.”
(ii) Such correction in Date of birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical error will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidates/application form of the candidate for the examination.
(iii) Request for correction in Date of Birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School along with attested Photostat copies of:
(a) Application for admission of the candidate to the School.
(b) Portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been made along with attested copy of the certificate issued by the Municipal Authority, if available, as proof of Date of Birth submitted at the time of seeking admission; and
(c) The School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at the time of admission.
(iv) The application for correction in the date of birth duly
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 10 :
forwarded by the Head of school along with documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2(iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within five years of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever, shall be made on application submitted after the said period of five years.”
The period mentioned in sub clause (iv) has now been amended as under;
“The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of school along with documents mentioned in bye laws 69.2 (iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within one year of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever, shall be made on application submitted after the said period of one year.”
“1. The correction referred to in the regulations and byelaws would take in a change of date of birth based on the Birth Certificate since that is the contemporaneous understanding all through the years in which the regulation has been in operation.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 11 :
challenge made.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 12 :
to the statutory provisions. No doubt, once an entry is made in the register maintained by competent authority in accordance with the statutory provision, it raises a presumption of correctness to the date of birth entry.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 13 :
restrictions imposed by them in their bye laws.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 14 :
only prospectively. This issue has already been answered by the learned Single Judge and we do not think that a different view should be taken in the matter.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 15 :
with the birth certificate from statutory authority, was not contemplated by CBSE in their bye laws.
“The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justitiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 16 :
variety of circumstances, inter alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 17 :
time of admission a clerical error occurred in making an entry in the school records. Hence, this judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. As held in Synthetics Ltd. (supra) and Gurnam Kaur (supra), for treating a judgment as a precedent, the facts on which the law has been laid down requires to be analysed. But, present are cases where the petitioners admit that their parents have given a wrong date of birth entry in the school records and seeks to reconcile it with the birth certificate. That apart, the Apex Court was considering a statutory regulation.
i) That CBSE shall correct the entries in the mark sheet of the
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 18 :
petitioners with reference to their corresponding birth certificates issued by the statutory authority, if the request is found to be genuine.
(ii) Genuineness of the birth certificate can be ascertained from the respective local/statutory authority/Head of the Institution or such other method, CBSE may deem it fit.
(iii) CBSE can demand in advance a consolidated fee, including all expenses for processing such applications.
(iv) Each of the petitioners shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to CBSE within a period of one month. “
“When it is evident that a wrong date of birth is incorporated in the school register and mark sheet, it requires to be corrected, failing which the applicants will loose their opportunity for further studies abroad. They also relied upon the Division Bench judgment dated 5/8/2009 of this Court in WA No.1948/2008 (CBSE v. Rahul) and connected cases, Manoj Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi [(2010) 11 SCC 702], Arun v. Central Board of Secondary Education (2010 (1) KLT 960) and Sreeraj R.Nath v. Central Board of Secondary Education (2013 (2) KLT 430) to substantiate their contention that the CBSE can be directed to correct the date of birth in the mark sheet despite the limitation of time. Reference is also made to the judgment in Cidco v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar [(2009) 7 SCC 283], for the proposition that the Deaths and Births Register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness which would prevail over an entry made in the school register especially when there is no evidence to show that the same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the minor. Reliance is placed
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 19 :
on Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (AIR 1988 SC 1796) for the proposition that the entry of date of birth in the school admission register is not conclusive. Further reference has been made to the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur [(1989) 1 SCC 101] and State of U.P. and another v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. And another [(1991) 4 SCC 139], to contend that the judgment in Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. M.D. Sarifuz Zaman and others [(2003) 12 SCC 408], does not lay down a precedent to be followed.”
“18. The learned counsel for CBSE, while supporting the stand taken by CBSE contended that none of these cases relate to a correction of date of birth in the mark sheet. In all these cases, the mark sheets reflected the date of birth as shown in the school registers, which were consciously given by the parents and the applicants had sufficient opportunity to seek correction at least before the Board Examinations, by giving genuine reasons. He also relied upon Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 9 SCC 750] and Shah Nawaz v. State of U.P and another [(2011) 13 SCC 751]. In Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the scope and effect of the statutory provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder. The issue had arisen in a case charge sheeted under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and certain provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. It was held that an age determination inquiry as contemplated under Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12,
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 20 :
enables the Court to seek evidence and in that process, the Court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates and only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificates, the Court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended. Further, it is held at paragraph 34 as under:
“34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination.”
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 21 :
“The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Judicial Comity is an integral part of judicial discipline and to maintain judicial discipline, corner stone of the judicial integrity requires that judgments of Coordinate Benches must be respected.
(i) In Lily Thomas vs. Union of India , reported in 2000 (6) SCC 244, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterated the principle that rulings of Larger Bench should be followed and those of Coordinate Bench of equal strength not to be different from and most be followed.
(ii) In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has criticised the decisions of Coordinate Benches, which have not followed the earlier judgments by another Coordinate Bench. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 , wherein at paragraph Nos.90 and 91, held thus:-
"90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 22 :
developed in this country in the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed.
(iii) Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 23 :
follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred only to a larger Bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 01, SCC at paras 6 and 7; followed in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, reported in 2002 (7) SCC 01, SCC at para 2.) But no decision can be arrived at contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by the coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1686 and K.K. Narula, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1368 , both have been rendered by the Constitution Benches. The said decisions, therefore, cannot be thrown out for any purpose whatsoever; more so when both of them if applied collectively lead to a contrary decision proposed by the majority.
W.A.No. 1155/2020
: 24 :
we do not find any merit in this appeal seeking reversal of the
judgment made in W.P.(C) No.26131 of 2019 dated 14.10.2019.
In the result, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
1 issue framed by the court
Should the direction to correct parents' names in a CBSE certificate on the basis of a corrected birth certificate be reversed under examination bye-law 69.1(ii)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India and OthersFollowed¶48
Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India and Others reported in 2016 (1) KLT 340
Lily Thomas vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶148
2000 (6) SCC 244, · Who else cites this
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and othersRelied on¶149
(2008) 10 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra PatnaikRelied on¶158
2003 (7) SCC 01 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Hansoli DeviRelied on¶158
2002 (7) SCC 01 · Who else cites this
Kalyani StoresReferred¶158
AIR 1966 SC 1686 · Who else cites this
K.K. NarulaReferred¶158
AIR 1967 SC 1368 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CBSE REGIONAL OFFICE
MUHAMMED ASIF (MINOR)
THE PRINCIPAL, JAMA-ATH SCHOOL ENGLISH MEDIUM (CBSE)
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
