IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24314 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOKUL GOPINATH , S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR AGED 21 YEARS, KURUMOOTIL GOPU MANDIRAM, VADAKKEVILA PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICAT EXAMINATION, NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI 110 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 2. THE PRINCIPAL TRINITY LYCEUM, FATHIMA ROAD, KOLLAM 691013. SRI.V.V.RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).24320/11, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24314 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE CISCE EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGULATIONS OF CISCE EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).17040/11 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C)s.24314 & 24320/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT In these writ petitions, the grievance projected by the petitioners is regarding the orders passed by the first respondent rejecting their applications for correction of their date of birth in the School records and the certificates issued by the first respondent. 2. Petitioners were students of the Schools of which the second respondent in these writ petitions is the Principal. Schools are affiliated to the first respondent. In so far as the petitioner in W.P. (C).24314/2011 is concerned, though his date of birth is 14.1.1990, in the School records it has been recorded as 17.1.1990. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C).24320/2011 is concerned, according to him, in the School records, his date of birth is recorded as 14.4.1993 instead of 1.1.1992. They made applications to the respective Schools for correction of their date of birth and the applications were forwarded to the first respondent for appropriate action. Such applications were rejected by Ext.P3 in W.P.(C).24314/2011and by Ext.P5 in W.P.(C).24320/2011. The only reason stated in both the orders is that in terms of the Regulations framed, applications without supported by Court orders will be W.P.(C)s.24314 & 24320/11 2 entertained only if it is made within one year of passing the examination. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. In several cases, including W.A.1948/2008, it has been consistently held by this Court that irrespective of the time frame prescribed in the Regulations, even belated applications made by the students are liable to be entertained and considered on merits. In that view of the matter, delay cannot be a reason for rejecting the applications made by the petitioners herein. 5. Therefore, Ext.P3 in W.P.(C).243142011 and Ext.P5 in W.P. (C).24320/2011 are quashed and the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter, duly adverting to the claim made by the respective petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs