Vysakh Sreekumar vs The Central Board Of Secondary ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14597 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
 WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 9560 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

           VYSAKH SREEKUMAR
           AGED 21 YEARS
           S/O. V.SREEKUMAR, PUTHENMADAM, PRRA 116 43/200,
           POWATHIL ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O.,
           KOCHI- PIN 682 018.
           BY ADVS.
           K.R.VINOD
           SMT.M.S.LETHA

RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HAVING ITS HEAD
           OFFICE AT SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
           PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 092.
     2     THE REGIONAL OFFICER
           REGIONAL OFFICE, CBSE, BLOCK B, 2ND FLOOR, LIC
           DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS, PATTOM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
     3     THE PRINCIPAL
           CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA, VADUTHALA, PALLIKKAVU TEMPLE
           ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKUAM-682 023.
           BY ADV SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   14.07.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.9560 of 2021
                                         :-2-:

                         Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021


                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner completed his Secondary school (class XII)

from Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Vaduthala, represented by the

Principal, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, during

2013-15. The petitioner's name is shown as Vysakh in the records

kept by the 1st respondent. It is his grievance that for the purpose

of pursuing higher education abroad, most of the countries

require the surname of the student. In the above circumstances,

the petitioner sent Ext.P3 communication dated 16.8.2020 to the

2nd and 3rd respondents requesting to change his name as Vysakh

Sreekumar. The petitioner states that he was advised by the 3 rd

respondent to get the name changed in the Birth Certificate. The

petitioner has thereupon obtained Ext.P4 Birth Certificate dated

24.9.2020. The petitioner has also obtained Ext.P5 "One and the

Same Certificate" issued by the Village Office, Ernakulam, on

14.12.2018. The petitioner's request for effecting the change was

rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P6 communication W.P.(C)No.9560 of 2021 :-3-:

addressed to the 3rd respondent citing the reason as non-

compliance with Clauses 69.1(i) and (ii) of the CBSE Examination

Bye-laws.

2. Heard Sri K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Nirmal S., the Standing counsel for the CBSE.

3. The question relating to correction of the records of the

CBSE was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jigya

Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Education reported in

2021 (3) KLT 711(SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that the CBSE cannot act as a Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that the courts can consider the genuineness of the claim put

forward by the students on the basis of public documents relied

on by them and can adjudicate on the justiciability of the claim.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court set out a scheme in the judgment and

held that all existing and future cases are to be considered on the

basis of the scheme, till the CBSE amended the Byelaws and

notified the same in tune with the directions on the judgment.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the Court decides on

the issue, the CBSE need not make any further enquiry and no W.P.(C)No.9560 of 2021 :-4-:

further verification is also required. In paragraph 152 of the

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that public documents

like Birth Certificate, Official Gazette, Aadhaar Card, Election

Card, etc., enjoy legal presumption of its correctness in terms of

explicit provisions contained in Chapter V of the 1872 Act and that

even other legislations concerning public documents attach equal

importance to the authenticity of such documents including while

making changes in their certificates. On the above reasoning, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no reason for the CBSE

Board not to take notice of the public documents relied upon by

the candidate and to record change on that basis in the certificate

issued by it, even if such documents are not entirely consistent

with the school records of the student. Dealing with the role of

writ Courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 156 of the

judgment held that when a student approaches a Court of law for

a declaration, by producing public documents, the Court would

enter upon an inquiry wherein the legal presumption would

operate in favour of the public documents and burden would shift

on the party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or W.P.(C)No.9560 of 2021 :-5-:

oppose the claim on any other ground. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the question of genuineness of the document

including its contents is to be adjudicated by the Court and on

being satisfied of the genuineness of the documents, the Court

can grant its permission for making the correction/change, which

can then be placed before the CBSE, which would then have no

locus to make further enquiry nor would be required to enter

upon any further verification exercise.

4. In the case on hand, Exhibit P4 is the Birth Certificate

issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kochi Municipal

Corporation, which certifies that as per the information contained

in the original record of birth register for the said Corporation, the

name of the petitioner is "Vysakh alias Vysakh Sreekumar".

Ext.P5 certificate issued by the Village Officer, Ernakulam, certifies

that Vysakh Sreekumar and Vysakh are one and the same person.

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Ext.P4 is a public

document and there is a legal presumption of its correctness and

there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. There is neither any

contra evidence available in the case to doubt the authenticity nor W.P.(C)No.9560 of 2021 :-6-:

any evidence to rebut the presumption regarding the correctness

of the document. So also, Ext.P5 is also a certificate issued by the

Village Officer, Ernakulam, in his official capacity and is a

certificate recognised by law. In the above circumstances, it is

declared that the name of the petitioner is "Vysakh Sreekumar".

The Writ petition is allowed and the Respondents were

directed to carry out the correction/change sought for by the

petitioner as regards his name, in their official records, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within thirty days from the

date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE dsn/ W.P.(C)No.9560 of 2021 :-7-:

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9560/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GRADE SHEET CUM CERTIFICATE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE PETITIONER IN SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2015.

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE MARK STATEMENTOF THE PETITIONER IN ALL INDIA SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICAT EXAMINATION, 2017 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2017.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.8.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CHANGED NAMED AS VYSAKH SREEKUMAR DATED 24.9.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE AND SAME CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE WITH RESPECT TO THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.12.2018.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 29.1.2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY FO THE NOTIFICATION OF CBSE DATED 1.2.2018.

EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF REPORTED JUDGMENT IN 2020 (3) KHC 34.