Allowed

Anandu Sujith, v. the Secretary

Kerala HC18 Feb 2020WP(C)/83/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an application to correct the father's name in the petitioner's CBSE certificate. The High Court held the rejection unjustified and directed the CBSE to issue a corrected certificate within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the respondent was directed to effect corrections and issue a new certificate within two months.

Anandu Sujith, Vs the Secretary — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 29TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.83 OF 2020(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANANDU SUJITH, AGED 10 YEARS S/O.SUJITH.C.K,RESIDING AT 'SAVIDHAM', MACHERI,MOWANCHERY.P.O,KANNUR-670613.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000) SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY,

¶11

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT(MHRD),DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL, EDUCATION AND LITERACY,

¶12

SHASTHRI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI-110115.

¶13

2 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, 2,COMMUNITY CENTRE,PREAT VIHAR,NEW DELHI110301,REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.

¶14

3 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,BLOCK-B,2ND FLOOR, LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY AND REGIONAL OFFICER.

¶15

4 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,BLOCK-B,2ND FLOOR,

¶16

LID DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶17

5 THE PRINCIPAL, SALAFI ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,VILLAGE MUKKU,P.O.KOODALI,KANNUR-670592.

¶18

R1 BY SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN, CGC R2-4 BY SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No.83 OF 2020(I)

¶22

18.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

¶25

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order and quash Ext.P8 issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 3^rd respondent to correct father's name of the petitioner as “Sujith C.K” instead of 'Chodomkandy Sujith Kumar' in Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 within a specific period.”

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CBSE.

¶28

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court against the rejection of an application for correction of his CBSE certificate by correcting his father's name as Sujith C.K instead of Chodomkandy Sujith Kumar. By Ext.P7 judgment, the rejection of the application for correction had been set aside and this Court had directed the 3^rd respondent - Regional Officer for CBSE to reconsider the application, taking into account Ext.P4 Birth Certificate. There was a further direction issued to the school authorities to carry out the corrections in the school records and to forward the same to the 3^rd respondent. It is

¶29

WP(C).No.83 OF 2020(I)

¶30

¶31

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the school authorities had carried out the corrections and forwarded the certificate, but the application has now been rejected by Ext.P8 communication on the ground that there is no justification for the correction since the student and his parents were all along aware of the details recorded in the CBSE certificates. The provisions of Rule 69.1 of the Examination Bye-laws of the CBSE are also relied upon to justify the rejection.

¶32

A statement has also been placed on record by respondents 2 to 4 stating that the correction as sought for by the petitioner is not justified. Paragraph 6 of the statement reads as follows:-

¶33

“Therefore as per the examination byelaw 69.1(ii), 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 correction sought by the petitioner does not fit in the category of typographical error as there is considerable change in the correction sought in the mother's name.”

¶34

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and having regard to the judgment of a Division Bench of

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No.83 OF 2020(I)

¶37

this Court in Subin Mohammed v. Union of India [2016(1) KLT 340], I am of the opinion that the reason stated by the CBSE for rejection of the application for correction by Ext.P8 is completely unjustified and unsupported by any relevant material. The petitioner had produced corrected Birth Certificate and had also made an application as supported by corrected school records. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the 3^rd respondent is completely unjustified in having rejected the application preferred by the petitioner by Ext.P8. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P8 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to effect the corrections on the basis of the corrected school records and the corrected Birth Certificate as produced by the petitioner. The necessary corrections shall be done and corrected certificate shall be issued to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Bng/19.02.2020

WP(C).No.83 OF 2020(I)

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE GRADE SHEET CUM CERTIFICATE OF PERFORMANCE DATED 28.5.2016 OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 10TH STANDARD ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE MIGRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2016 TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,KANNUR CORPORATION DATED 3.5.2017
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.6.2019 IN W.P(C)NO.11914/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.9.2019.

Anandu Sujith, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandu Sujith, v. the Secretary

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

Sarngadharan N., Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Daisy Mathai, Vs District Collecotr, Kozhikode District

Shiny P.R Vs State of Kerala

Biju.a., Vs State of Kerala

M/S Malabar Plus Constructions, Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran.O.P Vs District Collector