Sanal S. v. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/19TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 10325 of 2012 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SANAL S AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. D.N.SADANANDAN RESIDING AT GEETHASADANAM XIII/10 CHAITHANYA NAGAR LANE NO.7 EROOR WEST P.O THRIPUNITHURA PIN 682 306 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT . BY ADVS.SRI.K.D.BABU SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHIKSHA KENDRA 2 COMMUNITY CENTRE PREET VIHAR, DELHI 110092. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY REGIONAL OFFICE NEW PLOT NO.3 (OLD PLOT NO.1630A) (J.BLOCK) ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40 3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE NEW PLOT NO.3 (OLD PLOT NO.1630A) (J BLOCK) ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40 4. THE PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA VIDYAPEETAM PUBLIC SCHOOL THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682301 R BY SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 11758/2012, WPC. 11813/2012, AND CONN.CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10325 of 2012 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- - EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY DATED 23-02-1994 - EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PHOTO IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA - EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SENIOR SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE C.B.S.C - EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE 2ND REPSONDENT FORWARDED THROUGH THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-03-2012. EXT.P6 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18-04-2012. EXT.P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18-04-2012. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL // TRUE COPY // ## **K. M. JOSEPH & K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ** **----------------------------------------------------** W.P(c). No. 10325 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 10832 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 10828 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 11651 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 11758 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 11806 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 11813 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 14896 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 19674 of 2012, W.P(c). No. 19772 of 2012, W.A. No. 256 of 2012 and W.A. No. 725 of 2012 **----------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 9[th] day of January, 2014 ## J U D G M E N T ## K.M. Joseph, J These writ appeals and the writ petitions raise the question whether the official respondent in the writ petitions (CBSE) is bound to consider the application of correction of date of birth in the school records. 2. The applications appear to have been made beyond five years from the date of declaration of result in Class-X. The issue regarding the correction of date of birth, it appears, had engaged a Division Bench of this court and at that time, the extant byelaws provided an outer time limit of two years from the date of declaration of result of X[th] standard for making application for correction of date of birth. The Division Bench in the said case has initially passed an interim order. Pursuant to the interim WP(c). No.10325/12 & Conn. cases 2 ## order, the following decisions were seen taken : “Pursuant to the above orders the Competent Authority of CBSE had constituted a Committee comprising of HOD (Edusat), Section Officer (Coordination) and section Officer (Legal) to look into each cases and submit its report. The Committee recommended the following : 1. To correct the Date of birth of the candidates who had applied to CBSE after 2 years as stipulated in the CBSE Byelaws. 2. Change the date of birth of the candidates who had the birth certificate which is issued by Statutory Body so that they may not face any difficulty on account of inconsistent date of birth in different documents. In order to avoid any difference in date of birth for deciding future cases, the CBSE has also amended the Examination Bye-laws. The date of birth, in which the certificate issued by Municipal Authority will also be obtained by the school, at the time of admission of a student in the school. The recommendation of the committee has been approved by the Competent Authority of CBSE. Hence in all the writ petitions/writ appeals the prayer made by the candidates/petitioners have been acceded to by CBSE.” It was on the basis of the same recording the stand of the CBSE, the Division Bench disposed of the matter. 3. In the present writ petitions, applications were filed as aforesaid. The complaint was that date of birth was not being corrected despite there being proof of correct date of birth. The stand of the CBSE is that the original period of limitation being WP(c). No.10325/12 & Conn. cases 3 two years from the date on which the result of X[th] standard was declared, computing the period from two years from the date of declaration of result in the X[th] standard, as noted by the Division Bench also in the interim order passed, the student will still be a minor. Accordingly, they decided to extend the outer limit as five years from the date of declaration of result in the X[th] standard. According to learned counsel for the the CBSE, it is despite this learned single Judge directed to consider the applications without being bound by the outer limit fixed by the CBSE. Learned counsel for the CBSE also draws our attention to judgment of the Apex Court reported in **Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. MD. Sarifuz Zaman and Others,** ( **2003) 12 SCC 408** . He draws our attention to paragraph 10 which reads as follows : “Nobody can claim a right to have an entry corrected in a certificate solemnly issued by an educational Institution, that too the one enjoying the status of a statutory Board under the Act. The right of the applicant to have an error or mistake corrected is accompanied by a duty or obligation on the part of the Board to correct its records and the certificate issued by it. Not only it is a corresponding duty or obligation, it has also to be perceived as a power exercisable by the Board to correct an entry appearing in the certificate issued by it. People, institutions and government departments etc.- all attach a very high degree of realiability, near finality, to the entries made in the WP(c). No.10325/12 & Conn. cases 4 certificates issued by the Board. The frequent exercise of power to correct entries in certificates and that too without any limitation on exercise of such power would render the power itself arbitrary and may result in eroding the credibility of certificates issued by the Board. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the contention that the applicants seeking correction of entries in such certificates have any such right or vested right.” 4. He would contend that no student has a legal right and the matter would have to be considered in tune with the guidelines. He does not dispute that CBSE is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The bye-laws framed by it are not actually statutory. He would however point out that once the time limit is fixed, CBSE cannot be called upon to transgress those limits and consider the application. He would also point out that in some of the cases (WA.725/2012) learned Single Judge has further made various observations including that costs will be imposed for violation. It is also observed that the authority will be bound to consider the application even if the application is beyond the time limit fixed and without any order from the court. 5. Having contended thus, however, learned counsel for the CBSE would submit that as far as the present batch of cases (Writ petitions and writ appeals) are concerned, the CBSE will consider the applications of all the students (writ petitioners) even if it is WP(c). No.10325/12 & Conn. cases 5 filed beyond five years and take a decision on the basis of materials produced. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Peeyus .A. Kottam appearing on behalf of one of the students would submit that the earlier Division Bench decision should be followed and he would further submit that in the interest of justice correct date of birth should be reflected in the records. 7. As noticed in the earlier round of litigation which culminated in Ext.P3, the Division Bench of this court did not actually decide the issue whether the bye-laws are directory or mandatory. Instead the Court passed an interim order. Pursuant to the interim order, CBSE itself took a decision to consider the application of all the students who made the applications beyond two years. The period of two years is significant as at that time the bye-laws provided for the outer limit of two years. Still further we notice that in the decision taken by the CBSE, the CBSE also decided to amend the bye-law by enlarging the period from two years to five years. Therefore, the applicable period in the present batch of cases is five years. In this case, all the applications have been made beyond five years. Therefore, there may be questions to be decided in the context of change in WP(c). No.10325/12 & Conn. cases 6 the bye-laws and also due to the fact that the earlier decision was not premised on the finding as to the bye-law being directory or mandatory. But at the same time, in the interest of justice and in view of the stand taken by the CBSE, we dispose of the writ petitions and the writ appeals as follows : We record the stand of CBSE through its learned counsel that the applications filed by the writ petitioners (students) in all these cases though beyond five years will be considered and a decision will be taken on the materials available. We leave open the question as to the nature of the bye-law, whether it is directory or mandatory. All the observations and directions to the contrary made by learned Single Judge will stand deleted. The appeals are allowed as above. We record the further stand of CBSE that in all these cases a decision will be taken on the applications filed, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## Sd/- ## **K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE** Sd/- Sou. **K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE.** // True copy //