IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1263 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.38110/2007 Dated 29/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN THE WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEPUTY SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-40. 2. JOINT SECRETARY, REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-40. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4 IN THE WPC: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NAVIN.M.S., AGED 16, S/O.SANAL KUMAR, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682509 REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND FATHER, SANAL KUMAR. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, TALENT PUBLIC SCHOOL, AFFILIATED TO CBSE (AFFILIATION NO.930390), NARAKKAL, KOCHI 682 502. R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.FAZIL R2 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS, CGC FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1263 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The Central Board of Secondary Education (for short 'the Board') through its Deputy and Joint Secretary at the Regional Office in Chennai, has preferred this Writ Appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Board to alter the date of birth of the Writ petitioner in its records. 2. The petitioner is a student of Talent Public School, Narakkal, which is affiliated to the Board. At the time of admission of the petitioner in the school, his date of birth was shown as August 14, 1991. Apparently, it was realised by the petitioner later, that a mistake had crept in while entering the above date in the school records. The Registrar of Births and Deaths Kuzhupilly Grama Panchayat had issued Ext.P2 birth certificate indicating the correct date of birth of the petitioner as February,14, 1991. Therefore, on a request made by the petitioner, the school authorities had corrected the date of birth in its records by incorporating the above date. Subsequently a request was W.A.No.1263/2008 -2- made by the petitioner before the Board to carry out necessary rectification in the records incorporating the correct date of birth. The said request was turned down on the plea that, clause 69.2 of the Examination Bye-laws interdicted the Board from making such a change. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, particularly the submission made on behalf of the Board relying on the clause referred to above, took the view that the Board was not justified in declining the request made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to carry out the correction of date of birth of the petitioner consistent with the date indicated in the birth certificate issued by the statutory authority. The above direction issued by the learned Single Judge is impugned in this writ appeal. 4. Sri.Devan Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants places heavy reliance on clause 69.2 of the bye-laws and contends that no change in the date of birth, can be made in its records under any circumstances. He contends that what was sought for W.A.No.1263/2008 -3- by the petitioner was a change in the date of birth. The Board was bound to maintain its records consistent with the original entry made in the school records. Any alteration or rectification in the date of birth at a later point of time will amount to a 'change' which is interdicted by clause 69.2 of the bye-laws. We are unable to agree with this submission. 5. Clause 69.2 of the Examination Bye-laws reads thus: 69.2 Change/Correction in Date of Births i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board. ii). Such correction in Date of Birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidates/application form of the candidate for the examination. iii). Request for correction in Date of Birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School along with attested Photostat copies of: a) application for admission of the candidate to the School. b) portion of the page of admission and W.A.No.1263/2008 -4- withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been made: and c) the School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at the time of admission. iv). The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of School alongwith documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2 (iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within two years of the date of declaration of result of Class X examination. No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of two years. This will be effective from the examination to be held in March, 1995.” 6. A perusal of sub clause (1) undoubtedly shows that correction of typographical or other errors can be made in the records of the Board to make it consistent with the School records. But it is contended by the learned counsel that the school authorities were not justified in allowing the correction of the date of birth after the submission of the application form for admission. However, a perusal of Ext.P4 shows that the Board had more or less acceded to the request made on behalf of the petitioner, in the above communication addressed by the school authorities. More importantly the school authorities had only carried out correction of “an error” in its records, in tune with the Birth certificate issued by the statutory authority. The learned Single Judge in our view, had correctly construed clause 69.2 of the Bye-laws. W.A.No.1263/2008 -5- In any view of the matter, we do not find any error or illegality in the order impugned in this writ appeal. The writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS