IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 6012 of 2009(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ANNIE KORULLA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.T.C. KORULLA, THONIPURAKKAL, MEENADOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE), NEW DELHI. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, THE BMM ENGLISH MEDIUM SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, POTHENPURAM, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. 4. REGISTRAR, M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN(B/O) R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL R4 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 6012/2009(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE INDIAN EMBASSY AT AMMAN IN JORDAN. P2: COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION 2001. P4: COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION 2001. P5: COPY OF THE ALL INDIA SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE 2003. P6: COPY OF THE PETITON DATED 10/01/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6012 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the school of which the 3rd respondent is the Principal. The school is affiliated to the 2nd respondent. In the school records and the certificates issued by the 2nd respondent, her date of birth has been recorded as 26/3/1985 instead of 27/3/1985. Further petitioner also seeks correction of the name of her father and the spelling of her name. According to the petitioner, she made Ext.P6 representation to the CBSE with copy to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter complaining that orders have not been passed on the application, this writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent points out that in terms of the provisions contained in the Rules framed by the 2nd respondent, application accompanied by all supporting documents should be made to the school and that it is for the school authorities to make correction in the school records and then forward the same to the CBSE authorities. 3. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is submitted that WPC No. 6012/09 :2 : they are yet to receive any application from the petitioner. Therefore, the 3rd respondent cannot at this stage be directed to consider Ext.P6 for the reason that the same has not been received so far. In that view of the matter, the only course open is to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions; 4. That it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the 3rd respondent accompanied by all supporting documents seeking correction of her date of birth, spelling of her name and correction of name of her father. It is directed that once such an application is received, 3rd respondent will deal with the same and forward the application to the Regional Officer of the Central Board of Secondary Education at Chennai for passing orders in the matter. 5. Counsel for the 2nd respondent points out that in terms of the Rules of CBSE, unless application is made within 2 years as provided in Clause 69 of the CBSE Examination Bye laws, the authorities will not be in a position to consider the application on merits. In my view, this contention raised has no merit in the light of the judgment of this Court in WA No.1948/2008 and connected cases, where it has been held that irrespective of the WPC No. 6012/09 :3 : time frame provided in the rules, even a belated application is liable to be entertained on merits. Therefore, I reject that contention. Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp