IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.20750 OF 2020(P)
PETITIONER:
SRUTHY S.
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.SUNDARAM, P.K.BHAVANAM, PARIPPALLY P.O., PIN-691
574, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.SREESUGAN
R.J.K.KRISHNA BHAVAN, GANAPATHY NAGAR 171,
THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001.
BY ADV. SRI.P.A.SALIM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL OFICE, 1630A, J-BLOCK,
ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600040
2 THE PRINCIPAL
SREENIKETHAN CENTRAL SCHOOL, KARAMCODE P.O.,
CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 579
R1-2 BY SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.20750 OF 2020(P)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of January 2021 The petitioner passed the tenth examination in the year 2005 had his CBSE certificate with date of birth shown as 06.08.1989. According to the petitioner, his actual date of birth as seen from the birth certificate and the passport is 06.09.1989. He applied to the CBSE for correction of the date of birth entered in the CBSE certificate in concurrence with the date of birth shown in birth certificate as well as in the passport as 06.09.1989. This application was rejected by Ext.P5 order which is under challenge in the present proceedings.
2. The respondent has filed a detailed objection and opposed the application contending that jurisdiction of the CBSE authorities in correction of the date by examination bye-laws is very limited. A comparative chart narrating the entire aspects is also extracted in the statement. WP(C).No.20750 OF 2020(P) 3
3. The learned Counsel submitted that though this Court had on several earlier occasions relied decision of the Division Bench in Subin Mohammed S Vs. Union of India and Ors. [2016 (1) KLT 340], which the learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied, it was contended that the matter is now pending consideration before the Supreme Court. It seems that the Division Bench decision in Subin Mohammed S case supra holds the field as of now. Having considered the entire facts and the inconvenience that may be caused to the petitioner and the agony which may follow, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the decision in Subin Mohammed S. case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following conditions:
a) The CBSE shall correct the entry as it concerns the date of birth of the petitioner in Exhibits P4 and P5 and other CBSE records with reference to the birth certificate issued by the statutory authority if the request is found to be genuine.
b) The genuineness of the birth certificate can be WP(C).No.20750 OF 2020(P) 4 ascertained from the respective local / statutory authority / Head of the institution or such other method, as the CBSE may deem fit.
c) The CBSE can demand in advance a consolidated fee, which shall include expenses for processing the application.
d) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost to the CBSE within a period of one month.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE SKP/4-1 WP(C).No.20750 OF 2020(P) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.131953 DATED 24.5.2005 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADICHANALLOR PANCHAYATH DATED 12.8.2011 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT BEARING NO.K2734302 ISSUED DATE 12.01.2012.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH CONNECTED DOCUMENTS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CBSE/RO(MO/CORRN/2019/12368 OF THE CBSE REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI DATED 18.6.2020. RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE