Madras High Court
Punit Sudhakar vs Central Board Secondary ... on 18 November, 2021
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
Punit Sudhakar
Represented by his father and Guardian
Sudhakar Subramaniam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Central Board Secondary Education
Represented by its Chair Person,
Having Office at
Shiksha Sadan,
17, Opp, Rouse Avenue
Institutional Area Rd,
Rouse Avenue, Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi,
Delhi 110 002.
2.Central Board Secondary Education Regional Office,
Represented by its Regional Officer,
Having Office at Old No.1630 A,
6th Avenue, 3, 6th St, near Sri Devi Hospital,
Bharathi Nagar,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Board to correct
the name of the Petitioner's father as Sudhakar Subramaniam instead
of Subramaniam Sudhakar in the Mark Statement cum Certificate for
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
the Year 2019 (X Standard) and the Mark Statement cum Certificate
for the Year 2021 (XII Standard) and accordingly direct the
Respondent Board to issue a fresh Certificate for X Standard and XII
Standard.
For Petitioner : Ms.Dakshyani Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.Nagarajan
Standing Counsel for CBSC
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Board to correct the name
of the Petitioner's father as Sudhakar Subramaniam instead of
Subramaniam Sudhakar in the Mark Statement cum Certificate for the
Year 2019 (X Standard) and the Mark Statement cum Certificate for
the Year 2021 (XII Standard) and to direct the Respondent Board to
issue a fresh Certificate for X Standard and XII Standard.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner underwent his
education with the respondent Board and wrote X Standard Board
Examination in the year 2019 and XII Standard Examination in the
year 2021. The petitioner's father's name is Sudhakar Subramaniam
however it has been wrongly mentioned as Subramaniam Sudhakar in
the Mark Statement cum Certificate for the Year 2019 (X Standard)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
and in the Mark Statement cum Certificate for the Year 2021 (XII
Standard). According to the petitioner, the mistake crept in due to the
entry of first and last names in an incorrect manner and without
noticing the said mistake, the deponent also signed at the back of the
statement that all the particulars were correct. Since the mistake that
crept in the Mark Statement cum Certificate of the petitioner would be
an impediment in the future for the petitioner, the petitioner's father
made representation dated 10.01.2021 to the respondents seeking
correction of his name and since there was no response, has filed this
writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the issue raised in the present case is no longer res integra and
the issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.3905 of 2011 in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs.
C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) and others.
Hence, this Court may issue direction to the respondents to entertain
the representation of the petitioner's father seeking correction of his
name in the Mark Statement cum Certificate of the petitioner, without
citing any bye-laws or any other impediments, and correct the
petitioner's father's name in the Mark Statement cum Certificate for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
the Year 2019 (X Standard) and the Mark Statement cum Certificate
for the Year 2021 (XII Standard) and issue a fresh Certificate for X
Standard and XII Standard to the petitioner, within a reasonable time
frame.
4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
did not dispute the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.3905 of 2011 in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs.
C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) and others,
however, would submit that the application for correction of the name
of the petitioner's father has to be made through proper channel. The
petitioner's father has to make application to the School and the
School will forward the same to the respondents, however, the
petitioner has directly made application to the respondents which is
not sustainable.
5.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner as well as the learned learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.
6.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
petitioner, the issue raised in the present case is no longer res integra
and the issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011 in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor)
Vs. C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) and others,
the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
“2.The seminal issue in these cases is: whether
an individual’s control over such cardinal
element of identity could be denied to him/her
by the Central Board of Secondary Education 1
on the specious ground that its Examination
Byelaws of 2007 2 must prevail over the claim
of the candidate, which are merely intended to
regulate such a claim and to delineate the
procedure for correction/change in the
contents of certificate(s) issued by it including
regarding maintenance of its office records?
3.The CBSE Examination Byelaws restrict, both
qualitatively and quantitatively, the
corrections/changes that can be carried out in
the certificates issued by the Board. Various
students with need based requests approached
different High Courts resulting into inconsistent
outcomes leading up to this batch of appeals.
Apart from the fact that the judgments have
produced conflicting outcomes, the petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
raise some peculiar questions on the 1 for
short, “CBSE” or “Board”, as the case may be
2 for short, “Byelaws” constitutional validity of
CBSE Examination Byelaws (as amended from
time to time) and interpretation thereof.
169.Although we have discussed the broad
issues canvassed before us, in the ultimate
analysis the real dispute requiring resolution is
about the nature of correction or change, as
the case may be, permissible to be carried by
the CBSE at the instance of the student
including past student. As noted earlier,
broadly, two situations would arise.
170. The first is where the incumbent wants
“correction” in the certificate issued by the
CBSE to be made consistent with the
particulars mentioned in the school records. As
we have held there is no reason for the CBSE
to turn down such request or attach any
precondition except reasonable period of
limitation and keeping in mind the period for
which the CBSE has to maintain its record
under the extant regulations. While doing so, it
can certainly insist for compliance of other
conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file
sworn affidavit making necessary declaration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim
against it by third party because of such
correction. The CBSE would be justified in
insisting for surrender/return of the original
certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as
the case may be) issued by it for replacing it
with the fresh certificate to be issued after
carrying out necessary corrections with
caption/annotation against the changes carried
out and the date of such correction. It may
retain the original entries as it is except in
respect of correction of name effected in
exercise of right to be forgotten. The fresh
certificate may also contain disclaimer that the
CBSE cannot be held responsible for the
genuineness of the school records produced by
the incumbent in support of the request to
record correction in the original CBSE
certificate. The CBSE can also insist for
reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the
incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses
for issuing fresh certificate. At the same time,
the CBSE cannot impose precondition of
applying for correction consistent with the
school records only before publication of
results. Such a condition, as we have held,
would be unreasonable and excessive. We
repeat that if the application for recording
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
correction is based on the school records as it
obtained at the time of publication of results
and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be
open to CBSE to provide for reasonable
limitation period within which the application
for recording correction in certificate issued by
it may be entertained by it. However, if the
request for recording change is based on
changed school records post the publication of
results and issue of certificate by the CBSE,
the candidate would be entitled to apply for
recording such a change within the reasonable
limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In
this situation, the candidate cannot claim that
she had no knowledge about the change
recorded in the school records because such a
change would occur obviously at her instance.
If she makes such application for correction of
the school records, she is expected to apply to
the CBSE immediately after the school records
are modified and which ought to be done
within a reasonable time. Indeed, it would be
open to the CBSE to reject the application in
the event the period for preservation of official
records under the extant regulations had
expired and no record of the candidate
concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed.
In the case of subsequent amendment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
school records, that may occur due to different
reasons including because of choice exercised
by the candidate regarding change of name. To
put it differently, request for recording of
correction in the certificate issued by the CBSE
to bring it in line with the school records of the
incumbent need not be limited to application
made prior to publication of examination
results of the CBSE.
171. As regards request for “change” of
particulars in the certificate issued by the
CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars
intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate
are not consistent with the school records.
Such a request could be made in two different
situations. The first is on the basis of public
documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar
Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate
change in the CBSE certificate consistent
therewith. The second possibility is when the
request for change is due to the acquired name
by choice at a later point of time. That change
need not be backed by public documents
pertaining to the candidate.
(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted
earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation
to the public documents as envisaged in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore,
cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of
those documents, the CBSE may entertain the
request for recording change in the certificate
issued by it. This, however, need not be
unconditional, but subject to certain
reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the
applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE,
such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit
containing declaration and to indemnify the
CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in
lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may
also insist for issuing Public Notice and
publication in the Official Gazette before
recording the change in the fresh certificate to
be issued by it upon surrender/return of the
original certificate (or duplicate original
certificate, as the case may be) by the
applicant. The fresh certificate 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) indicating the date on which change
has been recorded and the basis thereof. In
other words, the fresh certificate may retain
original particulars while recording the change
along with caption/annotation referred to
above (except in respect of change of name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).
(b) However, in the latter situation where the
change is to be effected on the basis of new
acquired name without any supporting school
record or public document, that request may
be entertained upon insisting for prior
permission/declaration by a Court of law in
that regard and publication in the Official
Gazette including surrender/return of original
certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as
the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon
payment of prescribed fees. The fresh
certificate as in other situations referred to
above, retain the original entry (except in
respect of change of name effected in exercise
of right to be forgotten) and to insert
caption/annotation indicating the date on
which it has been recorded and other details
including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so
because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate
nor has the mechanism to verify the
correctness of the claim of the applicant.
172.In light of the above, in exercise of our
plenary jurisdiction, we direct the CBSE to
process the applications for correction or
change, as the case may be, in the certificate
issued by it in the respective cases under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
consideration. Even other pending applications
and future applications for such request be
processed on the same lines and in particular
the conclusion and directions recorded hitherto
in paragraphs 170 and 171, as may be
applicable, until amendment of relevant
Byelaws. Additionally, the CBSE shall take
immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws
so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for
recording correction or change, as the case
may be, in the certificates already issued or to
be issued by it.”
7.Perusal of the decision cited supra makes it clear that the
Hon'ble Apex Court has issued directions to the Central Board of
Secondary Education to entertain and process the application made for
correction or change as the case may be in the Certificate issued by it.
In view of the above, there is no need for submitting application for
correction before the School. Since the Certificate was issued by
Central Board of Secondary Education, they shall entertain the
application/ representation made by the petitioner's father and if they
want any clarification, the can call for information from the School and
issue correct Mark Statement cum Certificate as sought for by the
petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
copy of this order.
8.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
18.11.2021
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.Central Board Secondary Education
Represented by its Chair Person,
Having Office at
Shiksha Sadan,
17, Opp, Rouse Avenue
Institutional Area Rd,
Rouse Avenue, Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi,
Delhi 110 002.
2.Central Board Secondary Education Regional Office,
Represented by its Regional Officer,
Having Office at Old No.1630 A,
6th Avenue, 3, 6th St, near Sri Devi Hospital,
Bharathi Nagar,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040.
Coimbatore – 641 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.24090 of 2021
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
