Allowed

Anjana M.M, v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Kerala HC9 Dec 2022WP(C)/39979/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition regarding the correction of date of birth in a CBSE school certificate. Quashing the rigid application of five-year limitation, the Court directed authorities to accept an application supported by an affidavit and indemnity bond within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh application with affidavit and bond; respondent to consider same within 30 days via school.

Anjana M.M, Vs Central Board of Secondary Education — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ANJANA M.M,
AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O MANMADHAN K.K, ANJANAM (H),
MELOOD P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691523.

¶7

BY ADVS.
BHANU THILAK
S.R.PRASANTH
VISHNU.R
HARI SHANKAR PRASAD
SARUN K. IDICULA
SREERAJ M.D.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW NO.3,
OLD NO. 163 OA, J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD,
ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600040.

¶10

2 THE CHAIRMAN, CBSE, REGIONAL OFFICE, BSNL RTTC CAMPUS, KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695040.

¶11

3 THE PRINCIPAL, NAZARETH SCHOOL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676121.

¶12

4 REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691523.

¶13

BY ADV.
SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner had completed his Secondary School education from Nazareth School, Manjeri, Malappuram affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBSE’, for short). Date of Birth, in the records of the school covered under the Central Board of Secondary Education, was recorded as 25.05.1992 whereas in Ext.P2 Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths, Adoor Municipality as also in Ext.P3 Aadhar card, it is recorded as 19.01.1991. An application was submitted by the petitioner on 25.10.2022 Ext.P4 to the 1^st respondent for rectifying the mistake.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy with regard to the correction in the date of birth has been set at rest by Honorable Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education (2021 (3) KLT 711(SC)), though the question

¶19

WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -3-

¶20

of limitation has been kept open, thus prays for issuance of appropriate directions to respondents to entertain the application and pass order in accordance with law.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submits that Regulation 69.3 of the CBSE Examination Byelaws prescribes the limitation of five years from the date of declaration of result for entertaining the application for correction in the date of birth, but do not deny the directions contained in the order of this Court and various other orders passed from time to time noticing the directions contained in Jigya Yadav (supra) regarding submission of the undertaking and an affidavit.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper books and of the view that there is force and merit in the submission of the counsel representing the petitioner.

¶23

No doubt the Regulation 69.3 prescribes the period

¶24

WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -4-

¶25

of limitation of five years for submission and entertainment of the application for correction of date of birth and the question of limitation in the judgment of Jigya Yadav (supra) was kept open with a further direction to amend the Byelaws. It is conceded position on record that the byelaw has not so far has been amended and the same is pending under consideration. This judgment has been followed in the judgment of this Court dated 8.4.2022 in Writ Petition (C) No.29182 of 2021 titled as Ananthu Ashok v. The Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary Education , the relevant paragraphs of which read as under whereby the candidate was required to submit an affidavit and indemnity bond envisaging the conditions stipulated in Jigya Yadav (supra):

¶26

“6. In the case at hand, the issue involved relates to “change” of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE to make it consistent with public documents and hence would fall within the first classification, of the

¶27

WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -5-

¶28

second category. With regard to the said cases, the Apex Court observed that the legal presumption in relation to public documents as envisaged in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be ignored by the Board. It was accordingly held that, request for effecting such changes in the certificates issued by the Board, to make it in conformity with the public documents, could be entertained. It was further observed by the Apex Court that the Board is entitled to impose reasonable conditions while considering such request. The conditions observed by the Apex Court are:-

¶29

(a) An affidavit containing a declaration and an undertaking to indemnify the Board.

¶30

(b) Payment of fee for administrative expenses.

¶31

(c) The Board may in a given case, depending on the facts, require effecting of public notice and publication in the official gazette.

¶32

(d) Require surrender of the original certificate.

¶33

(e) A fresh certificate issued may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry. (Except in respect of change of

¶34

WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -6-

¶35

name effected in exercise of 'right to be forgotten'.)

¶36

1.7. While it is true that there has been delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking for the “change”, the explanation offered by the petitioner is acceptable. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's request is liable to be considered.

¶37

Accordingly it is ordered that, on the petitioner submitting a fresh application for change of date of birth through the fourth respondent school on complying with the requirements as above, then the first respondent shall consider the same in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra.”

¶38

Petitioner is directed to file fresh and proper application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and on receipt of the fresh application, the school will forward the same to the 1^st respondent within a period of one week and then the 1^st respondent will take action on the application within a period of 30 days thereafter. All these exercises will be undertaken in terms of the judgment of this Court

¶39

WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -7-

¶40

in W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed off.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶44

¶45

WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -8-

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39979/2022

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-05-2007

¶49

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS/
PANCHAYATS ON 18-09-2007 AND ITS
TRANSLATION
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD HAVING
NO. 931368293960 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED
COPY
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2022 ALONG
WITH ITS TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2022 ALONG
WITH ITS TYPED COPY.

Anjana M.M, v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana M.M, v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs General Secretary

The Central Board of Trustees Vs M/S.K R Gouri Amma College of Engineering for Women

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs the Secretary, M/S.Sanjeevani Samithi

Haneefa K. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Shibu.K.S Vs 1. the Regional Transport Officer

M/S Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner