IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33141 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LIYAMOL VARUGHESE, D/O. V.O. VARUGHESE, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, C.B.S.E, NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETHI VIHAR, NEW DELHI-92. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, THE CENTRAL BOARD FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.3, OLD NO. 1630-A, J BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI - 40. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, THE CENTRAL BOARD FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, C.B.S.E, NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETHI VIHAR, NEW DELHI-92. ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI FOR R2 SMT.SMITHA GEORGE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).33141/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who has studied in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, is aggrieved by what she terms as disinclination on the part of the CBSE Authorities to effect correction of date of birth as entered in the CBSE Certificate. According to her, the correct date of birth is 22.8.1983 and this is borne out by the register maintained with the Registrar of Births & Deaths. It seems that the petitioner had made an application in the year 2001 for correction of the date of birth and that was rejected under Ext.P9. Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to effect correction of date of birth in the mark list and certificate issued by the CBSE authorities. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing for the CBSE Mr.Ramkumar. W.P.(C).33141/2008 2 3. Mr.Ramkumar points out that Ext.P9 is issued as early as on 3.10.2001. Reasons have been given in Ext.P9 to reject the petitioner’s request. Writ petition is filed after a period of seven years. There is no explanation for the gross delay incurred in approaching this Court. Secondly, the writ petitioner has not challenged Ext.P9, but simply sought a writ of mandamus to the respondents to effect correction of date of birth in the records maintained with the CBSE. Obviously, absence of challenge against Ext.P9 stands in the way of the petitioner prosecuting the writ petition merely seeking a direction to the respondents to do something in relation to which they have already expressed their disinclination. In these circumstances, I do not find my way to issue any direction in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs