Allowed

Geethika Sreekumar, v. the Controller Examinations

Kerala HC6 Sept 2021WP(C)/15229/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a student seeking correction of her name in her tenth class marks statement issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The Court held that the Board must consider the request based on her passport, a public document presumed to be genuine, subject to appropriate conditions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to carry out the correction in the tenth class marks statement within thirty days.

Geethika Sreekumar, Vs the Controller Examinations — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15229 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEETHIKA SREEKUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS D/O. SREEKUMAR S., THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, IRAVON P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV C.B.SREEKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

1 THE CONTROLLER EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI110002.

¶11

ADDL.R2 THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI, ADDL. R2 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.07.2021.

¶12

BY ADV NIRMAL.S

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 15229 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

W.P.(C) No.15229 of 2021

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Petitioner was a student of Gulf Indian High School, AL Garhoud, Dubai affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (the Board). In the tenth class marks statement issued by the Board, the name of the petitioner was shown mistakenly as GEETHIKA SREE KUMAR, instead of GEETHIKA SREEKUMAR. In the Certificate of her Senior School Certificate Examination issued by the Board, her name was shown correctly as GEETHIKA SREEKUMAR. When the mistake in the name of the petitioner in her tenth class marks statement came to her notice, she preferred a representation to the Board for correction of the same. The writ petition is filed thereafter alleging that the said representation is not being considered by the Board.

¶19

A statement has been filed on behalf of the Board by its Standing Counsel stating, among others, that the request of the petitioner can be considered in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E. , 2021 (3) KLT 711.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

¶21

It has been held by the Apex Court in Jigya Yadav that

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 15229 OF 2021

¶24

the Board is bound to afford to the students opportunity to modify the information contained in the marks statements/certificates subject to complying with the requisite formalities which are reasonable in nature. It was also held by the Apex Court in the said case that when a request for change of information contained in the marks statement is made on the basis of the public documents which are presumed to be genuine in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the Board is bound to consider the request. Reverting to the facts, it is seen that the request of the petitioner for correction of the mistake in her name in the marks statement is based on the passport of the petitioner, viz, Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, the name of the petitioner is shown as GEETHIKA SREEKUMAR. Ext.P2 being a public document which is presumed to be genuine in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, according to me, in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Jigya Yadav, the respondents ought to have allowed the correction sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P3 marks statement as regards her name subject to appropriate conditions.

¶25

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to carry out the correction sought for by the petitioner in her tenth class marks statement (Ext.P3) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is, however, made clear that the Board would

¶26

WP(C) NO. 15229 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

be free to impose appropriate conditions to be complied with by the petitioner for carrying out the correction, as indicated by the Apex

¶29

Court in the judgment in Jigya Yadav.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 15229 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15229/2021

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THEPETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SECRETRY, KOZHENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 25/04/2002. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PETITIONER'S PASSPORT NO. N2981014 DATED 17/12/2015. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARYS CHOOL EXAMINATION (SESSION 2014-2016) , GRADE SHEET CUM CERTIFICATE OF PERFORMANCE (10TH CLASS) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 28/05/2016. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION, 2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 26/05/2018. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT OF SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION, 2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 26/05/2018.

¶39

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE FATHEROF THE PETITIONER TO PRINCIPAL OF GULF INDIAN HIGH SCHOOL AL GARHOUD, DUBAI, U.A.E. DATED 28/01/2021.

¶40

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL, GULF INDIAN HIGH SCHOOL AL GARHOUD, DUBAI, U.A.E. TO THE CBSE DATED 10/02/2021.

Geethika Sreekumar, v. the Controller Examinations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geethika Sreekumar, v. the Controller Examinations

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

Chicago Constructions International (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Joseph R.V. Vs State of Kerala

Shwetha Mohan Vs State Bank of India

George Joseph Vs the District Magistrate and District Collector

Ojasvi'S Construction Solutions Vs the State of Kerala

C.T. Joseph Vs the Kerala Water Authority