IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37289 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SUMAYYA SHEREEF,D/O.M.MUHAMMAED SHEREEF THOUFEEQ MANZIL, THENKUDICHAL,MANGODE PO KALANJOOR VIA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION NO.2,J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD ANNA NAGAR (WEST) CHENNAI 600 040. 2. THE PRINCIPAL JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA VECHOOCHIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. 3. THE SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT PATHANAPURAM 689 695. SRI.DEVAN RAMAHCHANDRAN, SC, CBSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37289 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the school, of which the 2nd respondent is the Principal. The school is affiliated to the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, her date of birth is 16/12/1989, but however, in the school records and the certificates issued by the CBSE, the date has been entered as 25/5/90. Petitioner states that she attempted to submit an application to the 2nd respondent, but however, the 2nd respondent declined to accept the same in view of Clause 69(4) of the CBSE Examination Bye laws, which provides that such application should be made within two years of publication of results. It is stated that thereupon she made an application directly to the 1st respondent, the postal receipt of which is Ext.P4. Orders have not been passed and therefore the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent points out that the application for correction of date of birth has to be made to the school concerned and that it is for the school to initially make changes and thereafter forward the application to WPC No. 37289/10 :2 : the 1st respondent for passing orders thereon. 3. In so far as the refusal of the 2nd respondent to accept the application for the reason that the application is belated for the reason that a time frame has been provided in Clause 69(4) of the Examination Bye laws is concerned, it should be stated that in Ext.P6 and in several other judgments of the Court, including the judgment in WA 1948/2008, this Court has held that irrespective of the time frame, even a belated application is liable to be entertained. Therefore, the 2nd respondent could not have refused to accept the application if tendered by the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the procedure laid down, the application of the petitioner should be routed through the school. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) That it will be open to the petitioner to make her application to the 2nd respondent seeking correction of the date of birth duly supported by the documents. (2) It is directed that if such an application is made, 2nd respondent will accept the same, entertain the same on merits and after making appropriate changes in the school records, will WPC No. 37289/10 :3 : forward the application to the 1st respondent, who on receipt thereof, will pass orders on the request made by the petitioner. (3) Such orders will be passed at any rate within 8 weeks thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp Date '16.12.1989' occurring in line 4 of paragraph 1 of the judgment dt.15.12.2010 in W.P.(C) 37289/10 is corrected as '11.2.1989' as per order dt 11.1.2011 in I.A.225/2011 in W.P.(C) 37289/10. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)