IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34682 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAAM S.SHARAF, S/O.SHARAFUDHEEN.A., SHA MANZIL, VADASSERIKONAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW NO.3, J-BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR (WEST) CHENNAI - 40. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW NO.3, J-BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR (WEST) CHENNAI - 40. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, M.G.M.MODEL SCHOOL, AIYROOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN. 695 001. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC. FOR CBSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.34682 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he was a student of the 3rd respondent school. It is stated that in the certificate issued by the first respondent, his date of birth has been shown as 25.5.1992 instead of 9.2.1991. Petitioner submits that he made an application to the third respondent for correction of his date of birth and that the 3rd respondent was reluctant to accept the application and that therefore he made Ext.P3 application to the 1st respondent . That application has now been rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P4 stating that the application should be routed through the school and that application now made is belated. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. 2. As far as the delay pointed out in Ext.P4 is concerned, in Ext. P5 and several other judgments, this Court has held that irrespective of the time frame specified in clause 69 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, even if an application is belatedly filed, the same is liable to be W.P (C) No.34682 of 2010 2 considered. Therefore the reason stated in Ext.P4 is unsustainable. Be that as it may, I cannot find fault with the view taken in Ext.P4 that the application should be routed through the school. 3. In that view of the matter, having regard to the case of the petitioner that the third respondent was reluctant to accept the application. I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. i) It will be open to the petitioner to submit an application complete in all respects before the 3rd respondent seeking correction of his date of birth. It is directed that if such an application is made by the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, third respondent will accept the application and process the same and forward the application to the first respondent who thereupon shall pass orders thereon keeping in mind the directions in Ext.P5 judgment referred to above. ii) Orders shall be passed by the first respondent within four weeks of receipt of the application from the W.P (C) No.34682 of 2010 3 3rd respondent. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma