Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4196
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION – Appellant
Versus
MURALI P.N. – Respondent
WA/606/2021
The judgment clarifies the binding nature of CBSE bye-laws on corrections in educational certificates, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established deadlines and the limited scope for amendments.
Headnote:
Regulations - Correction of Educational Records - CBSE Bye-Laws - Sections 12, 30: The court examined the bye-laws of CBSE concerning corrections in educational records, emphasizing the necessity for timely application submissions and the authority of the Board to set regulations limiting such corrections.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the CBSE against a judgment directing corrections in the name of the appellant's wife on the grounds that the CBSE bye-laws allowed corrections only for typographical errors, not for significant changes post-deadline.
Issues: Whether the court can direct CBSE to correct a name on a certificate despite byelaws restricting such changes and the period for permissible applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the regulations established by CBSE were not absolute and could be reconsidered under genuine circumstances, thus ensuring that applications for corrections should adhere to the defined restrictions and timelines.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the CBSE's decision regarding corrections.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of May 2021 Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment made in W.P.(C) No.63 of 2020 dated 05.03.2020, by which the writ court disposed of the writ petition by ordering thus:-
“5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the application was not proper. A Division Bench of this Court in Subin Mohammed Vs. Union of India [ 2016 (1) KLT 340 ] has held that correction is possible in the CBSE Certificates even when the application is belated as per the bye laws on payment of fine or costs.
In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the
3rd respondent to carry out necessary corrections in the school records, with respect to the name of the petitioner's wife, taking into account Exts.P2 to P7 and forward the corrected copy of the school register duly certified to the 2nd respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner within a further period of six weeks. In order to enable the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, Exts.P10 and P12 will stand quashed.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.”
2. Being aggrieved by the above, Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi and Regional Officer, CBSE Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram have preferred this appeal. 3. Shorts facts leading to the appeal are as under:
“Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the appellants to correct the name of wife of the 1st respondent in his CBSE Certificate without considering the CBSE Bye- laws. The correction of date of birth, name of candidate, father's name, mother's name etc., are governed by the examination bye-laws of CBSE. The correction in name of parents is governed by Bye-law 69.1(ii). The amended bye-law was brought in by notification dated 01/02/2018. As per the examination bye-law 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. The appellants also contended that the 1st respondent has, along with the writ petition, produced a birth certificate of the candidate, issued on 19/01/2019 much after the date when she had passed her tenth Board Exam.”
4. Assailing the correctness of the judgment made in W.P.(C) No.63 of 2020 dated 05.03.2020, appellants have inter alia raised the following grounds:
1. As per the examination bye-law 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.
2. 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 wife of the petitioner.
3. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this 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.
4. The learned single Judge was unmindful of the fact that a reasonable prescription of a statutory body cannot be substituted by courts with a more reasonable one which would result in individual predilections being imposed on statutory authorities as against the prescribed rules and regulations.
5. The name of the mother of the candidate as shown in the school register, which were consciously given by the parents and the candidate has even given sufficient opportunity to seek correction at least before the Board examination.
6. The examination bye-law permits correction subject to only reasonable restrictions. If such drastic corrections are permitted in the mark lists, the board is constrained to deviate from the stipulated bye-laws and issue corrected mark list in compliance of court direction.
5. Though Mr.Nirmal.S, learned counsel for t
