Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It is the case of the appellant that, as per the examination byelaw 69.1(ii), corrections that could be carried out are only to correct typographical and other errors, to make the certificates consistent with the school records. The correction sought by the writ petitioner does not fit in the category of typographical error as there is considerable change in the name of father of the candidate.

6. Assailing the correctness of the judgment made in W.P. (C) No. 1249 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020, appellant has raised the following grounds:-

3. The learned single ought to have borne in mind the stipulations in Bye law 69.1(i) that the gazette notification for change in name ought to be made before the publication of the result and not after that.

4. The 1st respondent has styled Exhibit. P8 notification amending the Bye laws of the CBSE as a rejection order and the same is not correct.

5. The learned single judge has erred in directing CBSE to correct the Mark statement without quashing Exhibit. P7 rejection order. As per the examination byelaw 69.1(ii), the corrections that could be carried out are only to correct typographical and other errors, to make the certificates consistent with the school records.

6. The correction sought by the 1st respondent does not fit in the category of typographical error as there is considerable change in the name of the mother of the petitioner.

7. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble court in Subin Mohammed Vs. Union of India and others (2016 (1) KLT 340) has clearly directed that the board ought to correct the certificates only if the request is found to be genuine.

8. According to the 1st respondent, her mother's name is 'Manju Varghese' as per Ext. P6 Birth Certificate but in Ext. P6, it is mistakenly noted as 'Manju'. The change in the name of the parent, sought is not a simple typographical error. Even if, as per 69.1(i) change could be made by applying for change in name or surname, the changes should have been admitted by the court of law and notified in the Government Gazette, before publication of the result.

33. In Rahul (supra), CBSE has only placed relevant materials before Court and had undertaken to consider the claim of students. The said judgment cannot be termed as a binding precedent to disable CBSE to frame their own norms, rules or regulations and even if a lesser period of limitation is prescribed, it remains binding unless a successful challenge is made in an appropriate proceedings.

34. Now coming to the cases on hand, going by the bye law conditions, we do not think that any of these cases fall under the category of clerical or typographical error, in comparison with the school records. In WP(C) No.1362/2015, it appears to be a genuine mistake as the date of birth is entered as 3/2/1992 instead of 2/3/1992. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, this mistake would have happened in the process of translation from Arabic. In some cases, the date and month are correct, but the year differs. In other words, a situation as envisaged, that is for reconciling the school records with the birth certificate from statutory authority, was not contemplated by CBSE in their bye laws.