Anitha Stephen v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931** **WP(C).No. 488 of 2010(I)** **----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **ANITHA STEPHEN, D/O.STEPHEN, AGED 22 YEARS, NENCHUMTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., RAMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 686 691.** **BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI.** ## **2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,** **C.B.S.C. REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.1630-A (NEW NO.3), J.BLOCK, ANNANAGAR, WEST, 6TH MAIN ROAD, CHENNAI.** **3. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, NERIAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC, CBSE, MR.K.M.ANEESH, MR.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) . R3 BY ADV. MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, MR.NISHIL.P.S.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 488/2010-I** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MARK SHEET NO.4150336 OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28/05/2002.** **EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.** **EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH & DEATH, MUNNAR.** **EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE NOTE DATED 11/03/1988 OF THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNNAR.** **EXT.P5: COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, MUNNAR.** **EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, KOCHI.** **EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2009.** **EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RO(M)/CORRN/REJECTION/DOB/2009/746 DATED 15/12/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 28213/2008 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **W.P.(C) No. 488 of 2010-I** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was a student of the third respondent school which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. She passed the Secondary School Examination in March, 2002. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the mark sheet issued to the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the certificate dated 27.5.2002 issued by respondents 1 and 2. In Exts.P1 and P2, the date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly recorded as 10.12.1986. It is submitted that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 2.3.1988. Ext.P3 is the copy of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Munnar Panchayat and Ext.P4 is the copy of the discharge note dated 11.3.1988 of the General Hospital, Munnar. Ext.P5 is the copy of the baptism certificate issued by the Roman Catholic Church, Munnar and Ext.P6 is the true extract of the passport issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Kochi. All the above documents show the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 2.3.1988. 2. Seeking for correction of date of birth in Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner submitted an application before respondents 1 and 2. By Ext.P8, wpc488 /2010 2 the same stands rejected which is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P9 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.28213/2008 and other connected cases, disposed of by a Division Bench. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE. 4. This Court has already considered similar matters in various writ petitions. The view taken in Ext.P8 cannot be supported in the light of the various judgments of this Court including W.P.(C) No.28213/2008 and connected cases, as per Ext.P9. Therein, the Division Bench of this Court considered the matter elaborately. In the said case, this Court had passed an interim order on 1.4.2009, para 4 of which reads as follows: “After having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should be considered afresh by the CBSE itself. Therefore, without proceeding further as regards the question of law involved in these cases as to whether the Examination Bye-laws of the CBSE is directory or mandatory in nature, we feel that in the interest of the poor students who are placed in the unfortunate situations referred to above, the CBSE should consider their cases sympathetically, as has been done in the case of students referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above. After all, the correction is not for any undue wpc488 /2010 3 or unmerited advantage like extension in service; but only for reconciling the date of birth as appearing in the Register of Registrar of Births and Deaths. In the above circumstances, we direct the CBSE to consider the case of the students referred to in these cases sympathetically, leaving open the question of law, and consider whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the situations referred to in each case, correction in the date of birth can be permitted. We make it clear that these directions are issued only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, and not as a general conditions.” In the judgment, the Division Bench referred to an affidavit filed by the CBSE on 4.8.2009 in the said case, wherein it was stated that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the appellant therein had constituted a committee and the committee has decided to take appropriate action for correction of the date of birth. Relevant communication addressed by the CBSE to the Regional Office, Chennai was extracted in the said judgment wherein condition No.1 is the recommendation to correct the date of birth of the candidates who had applied to CBSE after two years as stipulated in the CBSE bye-laws and condition No.2 is to change the date of birth of the candidates who had the birth certificate which is issued by the statutory body so that they may not face any difficulty on account of inconsistent date of birth in different documents. It is clear from the said communication that wpc488 /2010 4 the recommendation of the committee has been approved by the competent authority of the CBSE. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the CBSE to take action for the correction of date of birth in the school records, within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Any outer time limit provided in the byelaws for entertaining an application cannot be taken as a bar for exercise of power and the period provided can only be termed as a period for the convenience of the administrative authorities alone. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE further submitted that if the date of birth of the petitioner is corrected, she will be under-aged at the time of admission in the school. This objection has no merit in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Chandrika v. State of Kerala** (2010 (1) KLT 223). Therein, while considering a similar case which arose under the Kerala Education Rules, this Court has overruled the objection in the following words: “It is not the law that when a person's date of birth is allowed to be corrected, the advantage obtained by the said person based on the irregular entry, has to be forfeited. What is provided under the relevant rule is an opportunity to correct the date of birth in the school records on the basis of cogent materials which, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion that the original entry has to be wpc488 /2010 5 corrected. Going by R.3 of Chap.VI K.E.R. a facility has been provided to correct the date of birth in the Admission Register and sub-r.(1A) also provides for a facility for correcting the date of birth in a school records by the Commissioner of Government Examinations. sub-r(2) of R.3 is important. It provides that “if the authority referred to in sub-r(1) is satisfied after necessary enquiries that the change applied for could be granted, he will issue an order to make the alteration..........” Therefore, the enquiry is confined to the question whether the original entry requires alteration, in the light of the materials made available by the applicant. If the applicant can conclusively prove that the original entry does not tally with the correct date of birth, based on sufficient materials, power is given to the authority to order an alteration. It is not the law, therefore, that the advantage obtained by the irregular entry, if at all anything is there, will be detrimental to the applicant. The prohibition contained in R.5 of Chap.VI have to be understood in the light of the above facts.” 6. In the light of the directions issued the Division Bench in the above judgment, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Therefore, Ext.P8 is quashed. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to verify the particulars in terms of the birth certificate in original issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Munnar Panchayat, and to effect correction in the school records relating to the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 shall issue a corrected copy of Exts.P1 and P2 to the wpc488 /2010 6 petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** **kav/**