Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Appellant(S)/ on 16 March, 2018
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940
WA.No. 828 of 2018 IN WPC. 7220/2018
-----------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 7220/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
16-03-2018
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3
------------------------------
1 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
SHIKSHA KENDRA 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
PREET VIHAR, DELHI 110
092, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 CBSE REGIONAL OFFICE
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
NEW NUMBER 3, OLD NO. 1630-A,
J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR WEST,
CHENNAI 600 040.
BY ADV.SRI.NIRMAL S., STANDING COUNSEL, CBSE
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------
1. ALBERT PHILIP JACOB [MINOR]
AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. SUNIL JACOB, ELAVUMAKAL HOUSE,
VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VADAVATHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, SUNIL JACOB,
PIN 686 010.
2. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PIN 110 092.
R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
R BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
Antony Dominic, CJ
&
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 828 of 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, CJ This appeal is filed by the CBSE aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.5230 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.7220 of 2018. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to permit the first respondent to make corrections in the NEET application by changing the nationality from 'Indian' to 'OCI' and to permit him to use Aadhaar Card as ID Proof instead of passport. This order is impugned by the appellants mainly contending that in the prospectus, what is prescribed for OCI candidates is passport and not Aadhaar Card, in proof of their identity. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is impermissible for this Court to substitute the terms of the prospectus, which binds the appellants and also the candidates like the first respondent.
2. However, when the case was taken up today, the learned counsel for the first respondent brought to our attention, the OCI Card issued by the Government of India and W.A.828/18 2 the Aadhaar Card issued under the Aadhaar Act, 2016. He has also brought to our notice, the statement originally filed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge producing therewith Ext.R2(a), by which the appellants themselves have recognised Aadhaar Card as one of the documents for identification of the candidates.
3. The prescription of passport for OCI candidates such as the first respondent is for identification purposes. In so far as the first respondent is concerned, it appears that the difficulty arose on account of his allegation that his mother, who is presently employed abroad and at loggerheads with his father, is still retaining his passport with her. It was in such a situation that the learned Single Judge has permitted the first respondent to use his Aadhaar Card, which is also a recognised document as per Ext.R2(a). Now, we also find that if there is still any trace of doubt for the appellants, they can make use of the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) Card issued by the Government of India. In addition to all the above, the counsel for the first respondent has also made available a passport, issued by the United States of America when the first W.A.828/18 3 respondent was a baby and which document was cancelled by the Government of United States of America on 3.1.2006.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid peculiar facts in this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. However, it is clarified that in the event the appellants have any doubt about the identity of the first respondent, they will be at liberty to verify the OCI Card as also the cancelled passport issued by the Government of United States of America, which shall be made available by the first respondent.
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
Antony Dominic, Chief Justice Sd/-
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge sou.10/4.