Sajith V. S. v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ## **`WEDNESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SAJITH V. S., AGED 35 YEARS, PRAKASHAM, MNRA-100 AVANAVACHERY P.O ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM- 695043 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ANOOP BHASKAR AMMU MANOHARAN NARAYANAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHA KENDRA PREET VIHAR, DELHI- 110092 2THE REGIONAL OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EXAMINATION REGIONAL OFFICE, 1630 A, J-BLOCK ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI- 600 040 3ST. THOMAS CENTRAL SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MUKKOLAKKAL, TRIVANDRUM- 695521 ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022 -2- ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** Petitioner had completed his Secondary School education from St. Thomas Central School 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 26.10.1988 whereas in Ext.P4 Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram it is recorded as 23.10.1987. Mark list was issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education on 25.05.2004 with incorrect date of birth i.e., 26.10.1988 and an application was submitted by the petitioner on 20.06.2022 Ext.P6 to the 3[rd] 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022 -3- ``` 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. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022 -4- ``` representing the petitioner. 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022 -5- ``` 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022 -6- ``` 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.” Thus the 3[rd] respondent is directed to forward the application for correction of the date of birth within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and on receipt of the application, the 2[nd] respondent is directed to entertain the application and pass an order in terms of the judgment of this Court ``` WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022 -7- ``` in W.P(C) No.29182 of 2021. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed off. **Sd/-** **`AMIT RAWAL JUDGE`** ``` VV ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 38727 OF 2022 -8- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38727/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION FORM SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ALL INDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION MARKS STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ALL INDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION PASS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 02.06.1995 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-ISSUED BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 20.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM.` - `Exhibit P6` - `TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.06.2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P7` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.06.2022 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ```