High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions to enter...

Anjana M.M v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Amit Rawal
Judgment Date
2022-12-09
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is to file a fresh and proper application within one week from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; the school will forward it to the 1st respondent within one week; the 1st respondent will take action on the fresh application within 30 days thereafter, in light of Jigya Yadav (SC) and the Kerala High Court’s decision in Ananthu Ashok v. R.O., CBSE (W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021), and in terms of the judgment in W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions to entertain fresh application and decide within specified timelines.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Anjana M.M

Respondents

  • 1. Central Board of Secondary Education, represented by Regional Office, Chennai
  • 2. The Chairman, CBSE, Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram
  • 3. The Principal, Nazareth School, Manjeri, Malappuram
  • 4. Registrar of Births and Deaths, Adoor Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Bhanu Thilak
  • • S.R. Prasanth
  • • Vishnu.R
  • • Hari Shankar Prasad
  • • Sarun K. Idicula
  • • Sreeraj M.D.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Nirmal S., SC, CBSE

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns a correction of the petitioner’s date of birth recorded in the CBSE-affiliated Nazareth School, Manjeri. The petitioner’s school records show a birth date of 25.05.1992, while the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths (Adoor) and the Aadhar card record 19.01.1991. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent CBSE with an application for correction on 25.10.2022 (Ext.P4). The petitioner contends that Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021 (3) KLT 711(SC)) laid down that the Board can consider changes made to public documents to align them with public records and that the Board may impose reasonable conditions (affidavit, indemnity, fee, public notice, surrender of certificates, and possible disclaimer). Counsel for the petitioner submitted that limitation under Regulation 69.3 of the CBSE Byelaws (five years) should not bar entertainability in light of Jigya Yadav and related judicial directions, which this Court previously acknowledged but noted the byelaw amendment remains pending. The 1st respondent argued the five-year limit applies, though it did not dispute Jigya Yadav’s directions. The Court held there is merit in entertaining the petitioner's request and directed the petitioner to file a fresh application within one week, after which the 1st respondent must consider it within 30 days, in terms of Jigya Yadav and Ananthu Ashok’s guidance, with all actions to be undertaken under the Court’s order in W.P(C) 29182/2021. The petition is disposed with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Regulation 69.3 CBSE Examination ByelawsIndian Evidence Act, 1872 (legal presumption relating to public documents)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Presumption relating to public documents under Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Right to be forgotten (as discussed in Jigya Yadav)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (SC) laid down that corrections in CBSE certificates to align with public documents are entertainable and that the Byelaws’ five-year limitation should not bar relief in the present facts. The petitioner seeks directions to entertain and decide the application in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidance, arguing for compatibility with public documents and appropriate safeguards.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Regulation 69.3 of the CBSE Byelaws prescribes a five-year limitation for entertaining correction applications. They do not deny Jigya Yadav’s broader directions and point out that the Byelaw amendment is pending. They contend that the five-year period is a binding constraint unless amended by the Board.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Education2021 (3) KLT 711(SC)PositiveApex Court held that changes in birth date on CBSE certificates to align with public documents can be entertained subject to conditions; Kerala HC acknowledges this and applies it subject to pending byelaw amendments.
Ananthu Ashok v. Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary EducationW.P(C) No.29182 of 2021PositiveKerala HC followed Jigya Yadav and directed the petitioner to file fresh application with requisite safeguards; the current judgment relies on this framework.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anjana M.M v. Central Board of Secondary Education and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ## **`FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] 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:`** ``` 1CENTRAL 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. 2THE CHAIRMAN, CBSE, REGIONAL OFFICE, BSNL RTTC CAMPUS, KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695040. 3THE PRINCIPAL, NAZARETH SCHOOL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676121. 4REGISTRAR 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 1[st] 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -3- ``` 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -4- ``` 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -5- ``` 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -6- ``` 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 1[st] respondent within a period of one week and then the 1[st] 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -7- ``` in W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021. Writ petition is disposed off. ``` Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE ``` vv ``` WP(C) NO. 39979 OF 2022 -8- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39979/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-05-2007 ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS/ PANCHAYATS ON 18-09-2007 AND ITS TRANSLATION ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD HAVING NO. 931368293960 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2022 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY. ``` ``` Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2022 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY. ```