IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30644 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- THANOOJA THAMPAN, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.A.R.THAMPAN, MADAYI HOUSE, KADANGODU, CHERUVATHOOR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW NO.3, 'J'BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-600 040, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER. ADDL.R2. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, ERIYE, NAVODAYA NAGAR, POST PERIYE, VIA, PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD DT. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.13975/10 DT 7/10/2010) SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30644 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student in the school of additional 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, her date of birth has been wrongly entered in the school records. Therefore, she made a request to the 2nd respondent for correction of the said mistake. It would appear that the 2nd respondent forwarded the application made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent rejected the application and returned the documents to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P5 order. It is challenging Ext.P5 order, the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P5 order shows that it is mainly relying on Clause 69 of the CBSE Examination Bye laws and taking the view that the application made by the petitioner is belated, that the request of the petitioner has been rejected. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in several cases of this nature, this Court has held that inspite of the time frame fixed in Clause 69 of the Examination Byelaws, if an application is received by the respondents for correction of the date of birth WPC No. 30644/10 :2 : made by a student, respondents are bound to consider the request on merits. 3. Having regard to the fact that such consideration was not given to the request made by the petitioner, Ext.P5 is unsustainable. Therefore, Ext.P5 order will stand set aside. It is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition, 2nd respondent will forward the application submitted by the petitioner, along with other documents to the 1st respondent, who on receipt thereof, shall pass orders on the request made by the petitioner for correction of her date of birth. Such orders shall be passed at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp