Mathew Anil Parakkal v. The Chairperson, CBSE & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MATHEW ANIL PARAKKAL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ANIL PARAKKAL MATHEW, PARAKKAL HOUSE, ANAMALA JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY-680 307, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOTHER, GIPSI ANIL, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O ANIL PARAKKAL, PARAKKAL HOUSE, ANAMALA JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY-680 307, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (POWER OF ATTORNEY IS ATTACHED)** **BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE CHAIRPERSON, CBSE, PS 1-2, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, I.P EXTENSION, PATPARGANJI, NEW DELHI-110 092.** - **2 REGIONAL OFFICER, CBSE CHENNAI REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW NO.3, OLD NO.1630 A, 6TH AVENUE, NEAR SREEDEVI HOSPITAL, ANNA NAGAR WEST, J BLOCK, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 040.** - **3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 092.** **BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner, who passed the Senior** **School Examination and Senior Secondary School Examination in 2007 and 2009 respectively, based on which Exts.P7 and P8 mark sheets were issued, have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to carry out correction of his name in the mark sheets.** **2. The name of the petitioner is shown as 'Mathew Anil' in these mark sheets. Petitioner's wife is employed in Switzerland.** **It is stated that for the purpose of employment in Switzerland, the name of candidates should be given incorporating the Surname as well as father's name. For this purpose, petitioner had submitted an application for correction of his name. That application was rejected as per Ext.P9 order stating that the correction sought was not in** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **3** **consonance with the school records. Thereafter, petitioner submitted an application before the Crescent Public School, from where he passed the Secondary and Senior Secondary examinations, for correction of the school records. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.21396/2020 for a direction to the Principal of the said school for carrying out the correction. It is stated that on the basis of the directions contained in Ext.P11 judgment, the Crescent Public School has carried out correction in the school records and issued Ext.P12 certificate incorporating his name as 'Mathew Anil Parakkal' in the place of 'Mathew Anil'. On receipt of Ext.P12 certificate, petitioner submitted Ext.P13 application before the Crescent Public School. It is stated that the Principal of the School has already forwarded Ext.P13 application to the 2[nd] respondent on** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **4** **07.12.2020. As there is emergent requirement of the certificates for the petitioner for employment purposes, the petitioner has approached this Court again seeking a direction to the respondents to reconsider the request of petitioner and effect change in his name in the certificates.** **3. The learned Standing Counsel has filed a statement stating that the application was already rejected as per Ext.P9 letter and that the request of petitioner cannot be allowed in the light of Rule 69 of CBSE Bye-laws. It is pointed out that the petitioner had approached the Board for correction in Exts.P7 and P8 certificates after 13 and 15 years respectively and that he got his name corrected as per Ext.P5 Gazette notification only on 15.10.2019. It is stated that Clause 69(i)(ii) permits only typographical errors to make the** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **5** **name consistent with the entries in school** **records. It is stated that the name was entered in the certificates based on the details furnished by the parents of petitioner and there is no fault on the part of the respondents. Since petitioner's name has been 'Mathew Anil' as per the school records, correction sought by the petitioner cannot be granted as it is not in consonance with the school records.** **4. Heard both sides.** **5. When the Crescent Public School has carried out the corrections in the school records of the petitioner and the name has been corrected/expanded from 'Mathew Anil' to 'Mathew Anil Parakkal', the respondents would not be right in contending that the petitioner's name continues to be 'Mathew Anil' in the school records and that the correction sought is not in consonance with** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **6** **the school records. The petitioner has stated his emergent requirement to produce the same for the purpose of employment in Switzerland, where his wife is working. The changed/ corrected name is already published in Ext.P5 Gazette notification and the said notification takes in changes in all the certificates including those issued by CBSE, where his name occurs. Clause 69.1(i) of the examination Bye-law of the respondents provides that change in name can be admitted in case it is notified in Government Gazette. The condition stipulated for that is that it should be before the publication of results. Though it is true that there is considerable delay, it is necessary to consider the circumstances behind it. Even though the respondent has not committed any fault in entering the name in the mark certificates, the respondents have to consider the fact** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **7** **that requirement of name in this manner could not have been anticipated by the petitioner or his parents at the relevant time. He has submitted this application because his wife works in a country, where the name has to be shown in a particular manner and because petitioner wants to get employment there.** **6. In the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the requirement of petitioner for the purpose of employment, I am of the view that the respondents have to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the Gazette notification, when the orders in the Examination Bye-law itself provides for change in name on the basis of Gazette notification, especially when school records have already been corrected. Though it is true that there is considerable delay in approaching the 2[nd] respondent, petitioner has already explained the reasons for the** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **8** **same. As the Gazette notification takes in his name appearing in Exts.P1 and P2 certificates also, there is no reason why respondents should not accept the same, even though the publication was after the publication of the results and studies in the school was over. There cannot be any impediment in granting the request of petitioner.** **7. In the light the judgment in** _**Subin Muhammed v. Union of India and others**_ **[2016 (1) KLT 340], where this Court directed** **payment of fine in a case, where objection was raised with respect to the delay, the application of petitioner is also liable to be entertained and granted.** **In the circumstances of this case,** **the petitioner shall a remit a sum of Rs.7,500/-, with the 2[nd] respondent as a condition for considering the application on** **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **9** **merits. On remitting the same and on production of receipt towards the same, the 2[nd] respondent shall pass orders on the application produced along with Ext.P13 letter, for effecting change in the name of petitioner as applied for by the petitioner, taking note of the emergent requirement of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.** **Accordingly, the writ petition is** **disposed of.** **Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE** WW **WP(C).No.1467 OF 2021(G)** **10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRECTED AADHAR CARD ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRECTED PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITIES TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EAST CHALAKUDY DATED 24.5.2019. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER CHALAKKUDY. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 15.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH ON 11.2.2020. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE 10TH STANDARD BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE 12TH STANDARD TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED DATED 22.9.2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE CARMEL PUBLIC SCHOOL WHICH WAS CORRECTED AS PER THE ORDER OF DEO., DATED 8.10.2020. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 21396/2020 DATED 16.11.2020. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRECTED SCHOOL REGISTER ISSUED BY THE CRESCENT PUBLIC SCHOOL. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2020.**