Kerala High Court
Anuja F.R vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 31 May, 2022
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO.16620 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
ANUJA F.R.
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O FRANCIS.T, RESIDING AT ROSEVILLA, KODANKARA,
CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695132.
BY ADV NIRMAL V NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE,
SHIKSHA KENDRA 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
PREETI VIHAR, DELHI - 110092.
2 THE REGIONAL OFFICER.
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 1630-A, J-BLOCK, ANNANAGAR WEST,
ANNANAGAR P.O., CHENNAI - 600040.
3 THE PRINCIPAL.
DR. G.R. PUBLIC SCHOOL, OOOROOTTUKALA,
NEYYATINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.
SRI. NIRMAL S, SC, CBSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.16620/202
2
JUDGMENT
Condition imposed in Ext.P6 order dated 14.2.2020 of Central Board of Secondary Education correcting the date of birth from 20.6.1991 to 20.6.1990 has been interdicted of having not submitted within the time-line as prescribed in Regulation 69.3(iii) of the bylaws providing a period of five years from the date of declaration of result. Concededly in this case the result of the petitioner was declared on 2006 wherein inadvertently the date of birth submitted by the parents was recorded as 20.6.1991.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy with regard to the correction of date of birth in the certificate has extensively been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Guardian/Father Hari Singh v. CBSE and others [(2021) 7 SCC 535]. Question of limitation has also been kept open. The petitioner has already married and wanted to join her husband in Germany. Though her passport records the correct date of birth, while pursuing any employment the incorrected order Ext.P6 may cause any hindrance or impediment. The petitioner had, prior to taking admission in the school, obtained a transfer certificate where the date of birth was WP(C)No.16620/202 3 reflected as 20.5.1991 instead of June 1991. The correct date of birth as per the Register of births and deaths maintained by the concerned authority is 20.6.1990 as evident from Ext.P1 and the Aadhar card.
3. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that CBSE is facing difficulty in entertaining series of applications made everyday seeking correction with different certificates of date of birth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has kept the issue of limitation open, but had also issued directions to amend the bylaws, but the bylaws had not so far been amended whereas judgment is of 3.6.2021. There would not be impediment for the CBSE to delete the condition imposed in Ext.P6 in case the petitioner submits an affidavit with indemnity bond referred to 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.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
5. The court dealing with the aforementioned question had in paragraphs 6 to 8 laid down as follows:
"6. In the case at hand, the issue involved relates to "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the WP(C)No.16620/202 4 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 is acceptable. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's request is liable to be considered.
8. 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."
6. There is no doubt that the regulation promulgated in the laws of the CBSE prescribe the limitation period of five years. The application was submitted in 2019 after the expiry of five years though the petitioner had passed the examination in 2006. The birth certificate issued by the Registrar of births Ext.P1 reflects the correct date of birth as 20.6.1990. But inadvertently information submitted to the school authorities forwarded to the CBSE reflected WP(C)No.16620/202 5 the date of birth as 20.6.1991 and in one of the transfer certificate issued by the previous school, as 20.5.1991. The agony and difficulty faced by the children has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited (supra) wherein appropriate directions have been issued not to raise objections while entertaining such application.
7. No doubt in this case the application was submitted belatedly even after expiry of five years. But in view of the findings noticed above, the petitioner would submit an affidavit containing a declaration and an undertaking of the indemnity bond in the manner, aforementioned, and on submission of the same, the respondents would issue a fresh order without imposing the condition as prescribed in Ext.P6.
Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of six weeks' time. The petitioner to submit an affidavit within two weeks and thereafter the respondents will take a call in the remaining period and issue the certificate in accordance with law.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE csl WP(C)No.16620/202 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16620/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 6-8-2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27-5-2006 IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION, 2006 CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CBSE ALL INDIA SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27-5-2006 .
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CBSE/RO(M)/CORRN/2019/12119 DATED 14-2- 2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.