SHARMAL JAMES Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
LAWS(KER)-2020-11-666
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 30,2020

SHARMAL JAMES Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUBIN MOHAMMED S. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Being aggrieved by Exhibit P8 communication issued by the Regional Officer, CBSE, Thiruvananthapuram rejecting the request made by the petitioner to correct the Date of Birth of the Petitioner entered in Exhibit P2 Grade Sheet, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.)The petitioner states that he was born on 20.08.1997 as is evident from Exhibit P1 Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Corporation of Cochin. After completing his graduation, when he made attempts to go overseas for work, he noticed that his date of birth entered in the Grade Sheet cum Certificate of Performance for the academic session 2012-2014 was 20.08.1998. According to him, he had earlier studied in the third respondent school and while securing admission to class VII in the fourth respondent school, a transfer Certificate containing his date of birth as 20.08.1998 was presented. This inadvertent error has crept in Exhibit P2 grade sheet as well. He contends that in the Birth Certificate as well as in Exhibit P6 Adhar Card, date of birth of the petitioner is correctly entered as 20.08.1997. On noticing the error, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent and requested that the wrong entry be corrected. The fourth respondent forwarded the application with their recommendation to the first respondent. It is pointed out that the fourth respondent had acknowledged that the wrong entry was made by the official of the school and it had occurred since the official concerned did not cross-check the entry in the transfer certificate with that in the birth certificate. He states that the school authorities have initiated corrective measures by issuing a warning to the erring official not to repeat the mistake yet again. However, despite all that, the request for correction was rejected by Exhibit P8 communication. The petitioner has in the said circumstances has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P8.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ direction or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to reconsider the request for correction of date of birth in Class X mark list, and thereby direct them to correct the date of birth as sought for in the request.

(3.)The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement, wherein it is stated that the request made for the correction in date of birth is governed by 69.3 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws. As per the bye-laws, brought in by notification dated 1.2.2018, no change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's record shall be made. According to the respondents, the corrections that could be carried out are only to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificates consistent with the school records. The corrections sought by the petitioner does not fit in the category of typographical error and furthermore, the request has been made after a lapse of about several years.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.