Anjana M.M vs Central Board Of Secondary ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11455 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
   FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          ANJANA M.M,
          AGED 31 YEARS,
          D/O MANMADHAN K.K, ANJANAM (H),
          MELOOD P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691523.

          BY ADVS.
          BHANU THILAK
          S.R.PRASANTH
          VISHNU.R
          HARI SHANKAR PRASAD
          SARUN K. IDICULA
          SREERAJ M.D.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
          REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW NO.3,
          OLD NO. 163 OA, J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD,
          ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600040.

    2     THE CHAIRMAN,
          CBSE, REGIONAL OFFICE, BSNL RTTC CAMPUS,
          KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695040.

    3     THE PRINCIPAL,
          NAZARETH SCHOOL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676121.

    4     REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
          ADOOR MUNICIPALITY ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691523.

          BY ADV.
          SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022     -2-



                          JUDGMENT

Petitioner had completed his Secondary School

education from Nazareth School, Manjeri, Malappuram

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

25.05.1992 whereas in Ext.P2 Birth Certificate issued by

the Registrar of Births & Deaths, Adoor Municipality as

also in Ext.P3 Aadhar card, it is recorded as 19.01.1991.

An application was submitted by the petitioner on

25.10.2022 Ext.P4 to the 1st respondent for rectifying the

mistake.

2. 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 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

No doubt the Regulation 69.3 prescribes the period

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

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):

"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 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:-

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

(b) Payment of fee for administrative expenses.

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

(d) Require surrender of the original certificate.

(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'.)

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

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."

Petitioner is directed to file fresh and proper

application within a period of one week from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and on receipt

of the fresh application, the school will forward the same

to the 1st respondent within a period of one week and

then the 1st respondent will take action on the application

within a period of 30 days thereafter. All these exercises

will be undertaken in terms of the judgment of this Court

in W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021.

Writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

vv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39979/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-05-2007

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS/ PANCHAYATS ON 18-09-2007 AND ITS TRANSLATION

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD HAVING NO. 931368293960 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2022 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2022 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.