Partly allowed

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar v. the Secretary, the Central Board of Secondary Education

Kerala HC13 Oct 2020WP(C)/18451/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the accuracy of his DOB and father's name in the CBSE mark sheet. The Court entertained the DOB correction based on the birth certificate but rejected the name correction for lack of substantive materials.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to change the father's name was rejected. The CBSE was directed to correct the date of birth entry in the mark sheet referring to the birth certificate if the request is genuine.

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar Vs the Secretary, the Central… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.18451 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

AJMAL @ AJMAL UMMAR, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. UMMER SAHIB.V.E., PERMANENT RESIDENT AT H.NO.23/748 (I),VEZHAVELIL HOUSE, PARAT LANE, ALUVA (PO), ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN-683 101, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.UMMAR SAHIB.V.E., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. ISMAIL, RESIDING AT H.NO.23/748 (I), VEZHAVELIL HOUSE, PARAT LANE, ALUVA (PO), ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN-683 101.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW NO.3 (OLD NO.1630-A), 'J' BLOCK , 16TH ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST) , CHENNAI-600 040.

¶11

2 THE JOINT SECRETARY/REGIONAL OFFICER, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BLOCK-B, 2ND FLOOR, LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CAMPUS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE,PIN-695 004.

¶12

3 THE PRINCIPAL, BAPPUJI CENTRAL SCHOOL, KUNNAMPILLY, PERUVA (PO), KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE,PIN-651 518.

¶13

4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI,PIN-110 011

¶14

ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED

¶15

WP(C).No.18451 OF 2020(F)

¶16

¶17

5 THE REGIONAL OFFICER CBSE, CHENNAI.

¶18

IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.9.2020 IN WP(C)

¶19

R1-2 BY SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.18451 OF 2020(F)

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The above captioned writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in Ext.P3 certificate issued by the 1st respondent as 21.11.1989 and also for correcting the name of the petitioner’s father as Ummar Sahib. V. E.

¶25

According to the petitioner, he was born on 21.11.1989 at Devamatha Hospital, Koothattukulam as is evident from Ext.P2 birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Koothattukulam Municipality. He underwent his studies in the school run by the 3rd respondent following the syllabus prescribed by 1st respondent and passed his X standard examination in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, due to an inadvertent error, the date of birth of the petitioner was noted in the certificate as 21.11.1990 instead of 21.11.1989 as stated in Ext.P2 birth certificate. He states that his father’s name is wrongly spelt as ‘Ummer Sahib V. E’ instead of ’Ummar Sahib V E’. The petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P4 representation before respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking correction. However, his grievance is that Ext.P4 application was not entertained. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to

¶26

WP(C).No.18451 OF 2020(F)

¶27

¶28

correct the date of birth as well as the name of the petitioner’s father.

¶29

The respondents 1, 2 and 5 have filed a statement, wherein it is stated that the request made by the petitioner for change of name of his father was not considered in view of 69.1(i) of the CBSE Examination Byelaws. As per the said provision, the request for a change in name of surname of candidates and/or his parents will be considered provided the changes have been admitted by the court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the publication of the result of the candidate. It is further stated that the correction in date of birth is governed by 69.2 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws. As per the bye-laws, brought in by notification date 1.2.2018, no change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board’s record shall be made. According to the respondents, the corrections that could be carried out are only to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificates consistent with the school records. The corrections sought by the petitioner does not fit in the category of typographical error and furthermore, the request has been made after a lapse of about 14 years. It is further contended that the request is made on the strength of a birth certificate which was obtained only on 4.2.2020.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶31

The petitioner has sought for changing his date of birth and

¶32

also for correcting the name of his father. Insofar as the request for

¶33

WP(C).No.18451 OF 2020(F)

¶34

¶35

correction of the name of his father is concerned, there are no materials before this Court to substantiate the case of the petitioner that the actual name of his father is Ummar Sahib V E . Even in Ext.P2 birth certificate, the name of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as Ummer Sahib V E. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to issue directions to the respondents to consider the said request.

¶36

Insofar as the change of date of birth of the petitioner is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in Subin Mohammed. S Vs. Union of India and Ors. [2016 (1) KLT 340], had occasion to observe that the entry of the date of birth in the statutory register raises a presumption of correctness and it prevails over an entry in the school register. The presumption, of course, is always rebuttable and it depends on the facts of each case. This Court had occasion to observe that the future prospects of a student 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. It was held that though a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the strict sense, the failure to exercise jurisdiction may put the student in serious hardship. It was held by this Court that discretion will have to be exercised by this Court on grounds of public policy, public interest and public good.

¶37

Hence, in the light of the observations made by this Court in Subin Mohammed (supra), this writ petition is disposed of with the

¶38

WP(C).No.18451 OF 2020(F)

¶39

¶40

following directions:

¶41

a) The prayer sought for by the petitioner to change his father’s name is rejected.

¶42

b) The CBSE shall correct the entry as it concerns the date of birth of the petitioner in the mark sheet with reference to his birth certificate issued by the statutory authority, if the request is found to be genuine.

¶43

c) The genuineness of the birth certificate can be ascertained from the respective local/statutory authority/Head of the institution or such other method, as the CBSE may deem fit.

¶44

d) The CBSE can demand in advance a consolidated fee, which shall include expenses for processing the application.

¶45

e) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost to the CBSE within a period of one month.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

sru

¶50

WP(C).No.18451 OF 2020(F)

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED EXECUTED BY AJMAL UMMER TO APPOINT HIS FATHER AS AGENT ON 11.02.2020 AT THE EMBASSY OF INDIA, RIYADH.

¶55

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 04.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, KOOTHATTUKULAM MUNICIPALITY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDER FORM NO.5.

¶56

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALL INDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE DATED 27.05.2006, ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION CBSE.

¶57

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION/ REPRESENTATION DATED 22.03.2020 TO THE RESPONDENTS NO'S 1 TO 3.

¶58

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar v. the Secretary, the Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar v. the Secretary, the 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

Mathew Sebastian, Vs Dr. K.C.Kurian

U.v.Abraham Vs the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector

A.Bovas Vs the Arbitrator (N.H.) and District Collector

Adhikarath Kunheedhu Vs the District Collector

T.B.Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Pavithran. a, Vs State of Kerala