IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30164 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANUMOL T.VARGHESE, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.T.A.VARGHESE, THURUTHIEL HOUSE, ALLAPRA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI, SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K, SMT.M.KABANI DINESH, SRI.A.FEROS KHAN, SMT. FASHIYA YOUSEFF, SMT.ASHIFA YOUSEFF. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI. 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, PLOT NO.1630A, J-BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-600 040. 3. REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, PLOT NO.1630A, J-BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-600 040. 4. PRINCIPAL, ST.PETER'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAYIRUPPU, 682 311, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, S.C, C.B.S.E. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30164 of 2010 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the fourth respondent school. There was a mistake in her Date of Birth as entered in the school records. Therefore, her father made an application for its correction, which was rejected. Thereafter, she filed Ext.P7 representation before the fourth respondent, placing reliance on Ext.P9 judgment of this Court and seeking reconsideration of the application made by her father. As per Ext.P8, that application has been turned down by the fourth respondent, relying on the provisions of the Examination Bye- laws and stating that the application is belated. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 2. In Ext.P9 and various other judgments, this Court has already held that in spite of the time fixed in Clause 69 of the Examination Bye-laws, the authorities are bound to consider requests for correction of the date of birth even if WPC.30164/10 : 2 : such applications are filed beyond the period prescribed. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the petitioner's request cannot be upheld. 3. Therefore, I quash Ext.P8 order and dispose of this writ petition directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the fourth respondent shall forward the application made by the petitioner to the third respondent, who, on receipt of the same, shall pass orders thereon, within a period of six weeks thereafter. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the fourth respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks