Allowed

Sirajudheen T.P v. the Central Board of Secondary Education

Kerala HC12 Jan 2023WP(C)/306/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition, the Court directed the Central Board of Secondary Education and the school principal to entertain the petitioner's application for correcting his date of birth. The petition sought to align school records with his birth certificate and ID proofs, despite a limitation period expiry. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized compliance with affidavit and fee requireme

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to entertain the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth by complying with affidavit, undertaking, and fees within three months.

Sirajudheen T.P Vs the Central Board of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 306 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIRAJUDHEEN T.P.,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O SHAMSUDHEEN. T.P,
THEKKEPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
PAINKANOOR PO, KUTTIPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679571

¶8

BY ADVS.
JAMSHEED HAFIZ
K.K.NESNA
T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SHIHSHA KENDRA 2ND STREET, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110092

¶11

2REGIONAL OFFICER
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW PLOT NO.3 (OLD PLOT NO. 1630 A),
(J BLOCK) ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI, PIN – 600101

¶12

3THE PRINCIPAL
IRSHADIYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN – 679338

¶13

BY ADV
SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 306 OF 2023 -2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner had completed his Secondary School education from Irshadiya English Medium School 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 27.03.1989 whereas in Ext.P2 Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath as also in Ext.P3 Passport and Ext.P4 Aadhar card, it is recorded as 12.05.1989. Mark list was issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education on 23.05.2007 with incorrect date of birth i.e., 27.03.1989 and an application was submitted by the petitioner on 03.01.2023 Ext.P7 to the 3^rd 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

¶19

WP(C) NO. 306 OF 2023 -3-

¶20

Court in Jigya Yadav Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education (2021 (3) KLT 711(SC)), though the question 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. 306 OF 2023 -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

¶26

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):

¶27

“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 second category. With regard to the said cases, the Apex Court observed that the legal presumption in relation to public documents as

¶28

WP(C) NO. 306 OF 2023 -5-

¶29

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:-

¶30

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

¶31

(b) Payment of fee for administrative expenses.

¶32

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

¶33

(d) Require surrender of the original certificate.

¶34

(e) A fresh certificate issued may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry. (Except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of 'right to be forgotten'.)

¶35

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

¶36

WP(C) NO. 306 OF 2023 -6-

¶37

petitioner is acceptable. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's request is liable to be considered.

¶38

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.”

¶39

3^rd respondent school is directed to forward Ext.P7

¶40

application to the 2^nd respondent within a period of one week an d the 2 nd respondent is directed to entertain the rd same as forwarded by the 3 respondent and pass an order in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021. Let the entire exercise be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certifed copy of the order. i

¶41

Writ petition is disposed off.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶44

vv

¶45

WP(C) NO. 306 OF 2023 -7-

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 306/2023

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
23.05.2007
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE
KUTTIPPURAM PANCHAYATH DATED
23.12.2022
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PETITIONER'S PASSPORT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS AADHAAR
CARD BEARING NUMBER 3180 22873257
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED
03.01.2023
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER
ISSUED BY THE 3'D RESPONDENT DATED
03.01.2023
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT (RECEIVED ON 03.01.2023)
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE OFFER
HE NEEDS TO ACCEPT BEFORE 13.01.2023

Sirajudheen T.P v. the Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajudheen T.P v. 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

T. a Devassykutty Vs the State of Kerala

Renugopalan Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Ansif Benasor Vs Union of India

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P Vs the District Collector Ernakulam

Madhusoodhanan Pm Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs Manoj.K