IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23098 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ASLAM.S, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SALAHUDEEN.A, SELINA MANZIL, PALLIMMUKKU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 536. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SRI.M.FATHAHUDEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) REGIONAL OFFICE, 1630A, J-BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600 040, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE OXFORD SCHOOL, THAZHUTHALA, MYLAPURE, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 589, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC, CBSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23098/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23098 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the 2nd respondent school affiliated to the 1st respondent. In the school records and the certificates issued by the 1st respondent, his date of birth has been shown as 16/2/194 instead of 16/2/1993. 2. He made an application to the school for getting his date of birth corrected. The school appears to have forwarded his request to the 1st respondent, which is now rejected by Ext.P5 order. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is that the certificates issued by the 1st respondent can only be in accordance with the school records and that the application made by the petitioner is belated and therefore is inadmissible. 3. In so far as the alleged delay in making the application for correction of date of birth is concerned, though a time limit of two years have been prescribed in Rule 69.2 (iv) of the Examination Bye laws of the CBSE, this Court has taken the consistent view in several cases including in Arun v. Central Board of Secondary Education (2010 (1) KLT 960) that even WPC No. 23098/11 :2 : belated applications are liable to to be entertained and considered on merits. Therefore, the reason of delay now held out against the petitioner is absolute untenable. 4. However, there is substance in the first objection raised in Ext.P5 that correction in the certificate can be carried out only in terms of the date shown in the school records. This is on account of the fact that when an application for correction is made to the school, school will have to consider the same and if request made is genuine, correct the school records and then forward the papers to the CBSE for appropriate action. In this case, the school does not appear to have completed the aforesaid exercise and it was therefore that CBSE had to decline correction on that ground. 5. In that view of the matter, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will consider the application made by the petitioner in the light of the records produced and if correction is carried out in the school records, the entire documents along with a copy of this judgment and writ petition will be forwarded to the 1st respondent, who on receipt thereof will conduct appropriate enquiries and pass orders WPC No. 23098/11 :3 : on the request of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall complete the process within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the 1st respondent shall complete the process within 8 weeks of its receipt. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp