Kerala High Court
Sreekala C vs Regional Officer on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 5523 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SREEKALA C
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.ANEESH.A., MALIYAMVEEDU, CHOORAKKODU,
PATTIMATTOM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DT.
BY ADV V.GEETHA POTTI
RESPONDENTS:
1 REGIONAL OFFICER,
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL
OFFICE, PLOT NO.3, 1630-A, J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN
ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST) CHENNAI-600040.
2 PRINCIPAL,
VIMALAGIRI PUBLIC SCHOOL, KOTHAMANGALAM.P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DT.-686691.
BY ADV SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5523 OF 2020
2
W.P.(C) No.5523 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has passed Secondary School Examination
in the year 2005 from Vimalagiri Public School, Kothamangalam,
which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
(the Board). She is a person born on 16.01.1990. In her marks
statement issued by the Board, her date of birth is mistakenly
shown as 30.05.1990. It is stated by the petitioner that the said
mistake occurred due to the mistake committed by her parents
in providing her correct date of birth to the school when she was
admitted to the school. It is also stated by the petitioner that
though she has preferred an application before the first
respondent, the Regional Officer of the Board in the State of
Kerala through the school where she studied for correction of
the entry in the marks statement pertaining to her date of birth,
the request was turned down by the first respondent as per
Ext.P3 order stating that in the light of Rule 69.3 of the CBSE
Examination Bye Laws, application for correction of date of birth
cannot be entertained beyond five years from the date of
declaration of the result. Ext.P3 order is under challenge in the
WP(C) NO. 5523 OF 2020
writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the
Board by its Standing Counsel justifying the stand taken in
Ext.P3 order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
also the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.
4. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E. and others (Civil Appeal
No.3905 of 2011 and connected cases), the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the Board is bound to afford to the
students opportunity to modify the information contained in the
marks statements subject to complying with the requisite
formalities which are reasonable in nature and that the provision
in the Bye Laws that the information contained in the marks
statements cannot be changed after publication of the results of
the examination is excessively restrictive and imposes
unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights of the
students under Article 19 of the Constitution. It was also
submitted by the learned counsel, placing reliance on the said
judgment that when a request for change of information
contained in the marks statements is made on the basis of
public documents which are presumed to be genuine in terms of
WP(C) NO. 5523 OF 2020
the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the Board is bound to
consider the same. According to the learned counsel, in the light
of the said decision of the Apex Court, Ext.P3 order issued by
the first respondent is unsustainable in law.
5. Per contra, placing reliance on the very same
decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board
contended that the Board cannot verify the genuineness of the
public documents relied on by the candidates for seeking
correction in the marks statements and certificates and
therefore, it is obligatory for the parties concerned to obtain
orders of the court for seeking correction of the information
furnished in the marks statements and certificates. The learned
Standing Counsel relied on paragraph 150 of the judgment in
the said case, in support of his contention.
6. I have examined the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties on either side.
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, it has been held by the Apex Court in Jigya
Yadav that the Board is bound to afford to the students
opportunity to modify the information contained in the marks
statements subject to complying with the requisite formalities
WP(C) NO. 5523 OF 2020
which are reasonable in nature and that the provision in the Bye
Laws that the information contained in the marks statements
cannot be changed after publication of the results of the
examination is excessively restrictive and imposes unreasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the rights of the students under
Article 19 of the Constitution. 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, the request of the
petitioner for correction of the entry relating to her date of birth
in the marks statement was made on the basis of Ext.P1
certified copy of her birth certificate. In Ext.P1 birth certificate,
the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 16.1.1990. Ext.P1
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 first respondent ought to have allowed the
correction sought for by the petitioner in the marks statement as
regards her date of birth subject to appropriate conditions.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the first
WP(C) NO. 5523 OF 2020
respondent is directed to carry out the correction sought for by
the petitioner in her marks statement (Ext.P2) 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 be free to impose appropriate conditions to
be complied with by the petitioner for carrying out the
correction, as indicated by the Apex Court in the judgment in
Jigya Yadav.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 5523 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5523/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL MARKS
STATEMENT DATED 24.5.2005 ISSUED BY
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2019.
