High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions directin...

Lakshmy C. Senan v Central Board of Secondary Education and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Amit Rawal
Judgment Date
2022-11-02
Court Decision / Holding
WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022 disposed with directions: The additional 5th Respondent (Regional Officer, CBSE, Chennai) is suo motu impleaded and directed to entertain the application for correction of the date of birth and pass an order in terms of the judgment in W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021. The petitioner is to file a fresh application within one week from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; upon receipt, the school will forward the fresh application to the additional 5th Respondent within one week, who shall take action within 30 days thereafter. The directions align with Jigya Yadav (SC) and Ananthu Ashok, and the Byelaws amendment process remains pending.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions directing entertainment and processing of the DOB correction in light of Jigya Yadav and Ananthu Ashok judgments; 5th respondent to entertain; fresh application to be filed within a week; action to be taken within 30 days by 5th respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Lakshmy C. Senan

Respondents

  • Central Board of Secondary Education (Head Office)
  • Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education (Regional Office), Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Controller of Examinations, CBSE
  • Sree Narayana Trusts Cen School, Kollam
  • Regional Officer, CBSE Anna Nagar West, Chennai (Additional 5th Respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Enoch David Simon Joel
  • • S. SreeDev
  • • Rony Jose
  • • Leo Lukose
  • • Cimil Cherian Kottalil

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Nirmal SC CBSE

Case Synopsis & Summary

Lakshmy C. Senan, a candidate who completed the All India Secondary Examination in 2004, seeks correction of the date of birth recorded in her CBSE certificate. Ext.P1 shows the DOB as 19.05.1989, while Ext.P2 (birth certificate), Ext.P3 (Aadhaar), Ext.P3(a) Election Card, Ext.P3(b) Driving Licence, Ext.P3(c) Passport and Ext.P3(d) PAN Card reflect a DOB of 14.01.1988. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 seeking correction, which the respondents did not process. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021 (3) KLT 711(SC)) has settled the controversy regarding correction of CBSE birth certificates, though it left the question of limitation open and advised amendments to the Byelaws. The respondents rely on Regulation 69.3 of the CBSE Byelaws, prescribing a five-year limitation for entertaining such applications, and point out that the Byelaws have not yet been amended, though several orders have followed Jigya Yadav’s directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Regulation 69.3 of the CBSE Examination ByelawsIndian Evidence Act, 1872

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Presumption that public documents are accurate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that there is a discrepancy in the date of birth as recorded in Ext.P1 (19.05.1989) versus other public documents (14.01.1988). She urges correction in the CBSE certificate and relies on Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021 (3) KLT 711(SC)), which held corrections to CBSE birth certificates could be entertained, though limitation was left open. She requests directions to entertain the application and issue an appropriate order in accordance with law, noting that Regulation 69.3 sets a five-year limitation but that the byelaws have not yet been amended. She further points to Ananthu Ashok v. RO, CBSE (W.P.(C) No. 29182 of 2021) and seeks compliance with the principles laid down therein, including conditions such as affidavits, indemnities, and potential public notice, to facilitate correction.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents acknowledge Regulation 69.3’s five-year limitation for entertaining DOB corrections but concede the Supreme Court’s Jigya Yadav directive and prior orders recognizing the need to entertain such requests. They submit that the Byelaws have not been amended yet and thus the formal process remains constrained by the limitation provision. They contend the correction mechanism requires the Byelaws to be amended, and that any relaxation must be guided by Jigya Yadav (supra) and subsequent orders, such as Ananthu Ashok, which prescribe conditions such as affidavits, indemnities, and potential publication. They do not dispute the necessity to entertain and decide the application, but emphasize statutory conditions and pending Byelaw amendments as barriers to automatic relief.”},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Education2021 (3) KLT 711(SC)PositiveApex Court held that corrections to CBSE birth certificates can be entertained; limitation status left open; used by this Court to contemplate exercising the remedy notwithstanding the five-year limit.
Ananth(u) Ashok v. Regional Officer, CBSEW.P.(C) No.29182 of 2021PositiveJudgment followed, prescribing conditions for correction—affidavit/indemnity, potential public notice, etc.—and directing consideration of the correction per those principles.

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 Lakshmy C. Senan v Central Board of Secondary Education and Others 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`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` LAKSHMY C. SENAN AGED 34 YEARS D/O A CHANDRA SENAN, RESIDING AT PRASANTHI, 422- VAIDYASLA NAGAR, ASRAMAM P.O,KOLLAM, PIN – 691002 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION HEAD OFFICE, SHIKSHA KENDRA NO: 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110092 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2REGIONAL OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (REGIONAL OFFICE), 2ND FLOOR BLOCK - B, LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN – 695004 3CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI, PIN – 110092 4SREE NARAYANA TRUSTS CEN SCHOOL KOLLAM, PIN - 110092 REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` ADDL.R5THE REGIONAL OFFICER, ``` ``` REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI ``` ``` IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2022. ``` ``` SRI.NIRMAL SC CBSE ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner completed his All India Secondary Examination from the 4[th] respondent's School in the year 2004 and he was issued with Ext.P1 certificate, where the Date of birth is shown as 19.05.1989 mistakenly. It is submitted that in Ext.P2 date of birth certificate, Ext.P3 Aadhaar Card of the petitioner, Ext.P3(a) Election ID card, Ext.P3(b) Drivers License ID, Ext.P3(c) passport of the petitioner and Ext.P3(d) PAN Card of the petitioner the date of birth is correctly shown as 14.01.1988. Petitioner submitted a request Ext.P5 before the respondents requesting to correct the date of birth in the certificate, which is not processed by them. 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. ``` 4 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022`** 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. 5. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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.” 6. The Regional Officer, Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary Education, Anna Nagar West, Chennai is suo motu impleaded as additional 5[th] respondent. Thus the additional 5[th] respondent is directed to entertain the application for correction of the date of birth and pass an order in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.29182 ``` WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` of 2021. Petitioner is directed to file fresh 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 additional 5[th] respondent within a period of one week and then the additional 5[th] respondent will take action on the application within a period of 30 days thereafter. **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** nak ``` 8 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 34961 OF 2022`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34961/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit 3(d)A TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NUMBER ARAPC9060F. ``` ``` Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE CLASS X CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.05.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25.05.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 02.01.1993 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, QUILON MUNICIPALITY.` - `Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY AADHAR OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NUMBER 225321043733.` - `Exhibit P3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION ID CARD OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NUMBER YYJ0472803.` - `Exhibit P3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVERS LICENCE ID CARD OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NUMBER DL NO.KL02 20220010508.` - `Exhibit P3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NUMBER U6628200.` - `Exhibit P3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NUMBER ARAPC9060F.` - `Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL.` ``` Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ```