High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay H vs Central Board Of Secondary Education Represented By Controller Of Examinations Todarmal Marg Ajmer (Rajasthan)

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 KL CK 0028

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sathish Ninan, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
WP(C) NO. 14926 OF 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 658 words

Sathish Ninan, J

1.

The request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the school records and the records of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 communication dated 06.05.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2.

According  to  the  petitioner,  his  date  of  birth  is

28.06.1975, but has been erroneously recorded in the school records as 28.05.1975. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kollam Municipality.

3.

The petitioner completed his 10th standard in the year 1990. He seeks for correction of the school records only at this distance of time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mistake was noticed only recently when preparations were being made for a foreign assignment.

4.

Adv.Nirmal.S, the learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the correction as there is a huge delay of 31 years in approaching the Board. As additional affidavit has been placed on record by the petitioner explaining the delay.

5.

The right of a student of the Board to seek for correction/change of the particulars in the school records and the certificates issued by the Board has been dealt with exhaustively by the Apex Court in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE [2021 (3) KLT 711 (SC)]. The situations were divided into two categories namely, where "correction" is sought and, where "change" is sought. Under the category of "corrections" the Apex Court included cases where the certificates issued by the Board were required to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. In the category of "change" of particulars, two situations were contemplated-firstly, where by the records of the Board provide particulars different from that provided in public documents like birth certificate, aadhar card, election card etc. and secondly, a case of request for change of name consequent to the acquisition of a name by choice at a later point of time.

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 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'.)

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 that the mistake was noticed only recently, cannot be brushed aside. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's request is liable to be considered afresh.

8.

Accordingly it is ordered that, on the petitioner submitting a fresh application for change of date of birth through the second respondent school on complying with the requirements as above, then the Addl.fourth respondent shall consider the same in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra and dehors Ext.P3 communication dated 06.05.2021.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.