Sidharth Jayanand vs Central Board Of Secondary ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18733 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
    THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 17467 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SIDHARTH JAYANAND
          AGED 24 YEARS
          S/O.JAYANAND VIJAYANAND, 'SONAM', DNRA 88A,
          KARAMKOTTUKONAM, PEYAD POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695
          573

          BY ADVS.
          S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
          P.LISSY JOSE



RESPONDENTS:

    1     CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
          REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2,
          COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI 110 092

    2     THE REGIONAL OFFICER
          CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,
          DELHI, P-S, 1-2, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, I.P.EXTN.,
          PATPARGANJ, DELHI 110 092

    3     THE PRINCIPAL
          INDIAN CENTRAL SCHOOL, P.O.BOX 54117, JLEEB AL-
          SHUYOUKH, KUWAIT.

          BY ADV SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17467 OF 2021

                                         2




                          W.P.(C) No.17467 of 2021
                   -----------------------------------------------
                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner was a student of Indian Central School, Kuwait

affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (the Board). In the

tenth class marks statement issued by the Board, the name of the

petitioner was shown mistakenly as SIDDHARTH JAYANAND, instead of

SIDHARTH JAYANAND. In the Certificate of his Senior School Certificate

Examination issued by the Board, his name was shown correctly as

SIDHARTH JAYANAND. When the mistake in the name of the petitioner in

his tenth class marks statement came to his notice, he preferred an

application to the Board for correction of the same. The application of the

petitioner was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P9

communication stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be

considered in the light of the Rules of the Board. Ext.P9 communication

is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board opposed the

prayer of the petitioner for correction.

4. It has been held by the Apex Court in Jigya Yadav v. WP(C) NO. 17467 OF 2021

C.B.S.E., 2021 (3) KLT 711 that the Board is bound to afford to the

students opportunity to modify the information contained in the marks

statements/certificates notwithstanding the provisions in the bye laws of

the CBSE subject to complying with the requisite formalities which are

reasonable in nature. 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, it

is seen that the request of the petitioner for correction of the mistake in

his name in the marks statement is based on the birth certificate of the

petitioner, viz, Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, the name of the petitioner is shown as

SIDHARTH JAYANAND. Ext.P5 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 respondents ought to have allowed the correction

sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P3 marks statement as regards his

name subject to appropriate conditions.

5. In the result, Ext.P9 order is set aside and the Board is

directed to carry out the correction sought for by the petitioner in his

tenth class marks statement (Ext.P3) as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the WP(C) NO. 17467 OF 2021

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.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE Mn WP(C) NO. 17467 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17467/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DATED 27.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE DATED 30/5/2013 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF THE CBSE

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.5.2015 FOR THE SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION 2015 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF THE CBSE.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 31/5/2001 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, KOLLAM CORPORATION

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED ON 6/4/2015.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/6/2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/6/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CBSC/ROD/M AND M/CORRECTION/A1-885/2013 DATED 6/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (M AND M) OF THE RESPONDENT

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION LETTER DATED 4/6/2015 ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR, SMOLENSK STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, RUSSIA

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16/6/2021 ISSUED BY THE DEAN, SMOLENSK STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, RUSSIA.