IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1196 of 2010 Between: Smt. K. Jhansi Lakshmi … Petitioner And The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, rep., by the Chief Executive & Secretary, New Delhi & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt. Sumalini Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1196 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in failing to issue X class marks list with corrected date of birth of the petitioner’s son as 16.02.1993 instead of 16.02.1992, as illegal. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to issue the statement of marks with the corrected date of birth. Though notice was served on 02.02.2010, as evident from the acknowledgement placed on record, no one appeared for respondent No.1. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sumalini Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.2. The son of the petitioner Siddharth Gokhale Kudupudi was the student of respondent No.2 School. His date of birth is 16.02.1993. While he was admitted in respondent No.2 school in 1996-97, his date of birth was correctly entered in the School records. When he received his X class hall-ticket, it was found that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 16.02.1992 instead of 16.02.1993. The petitioner immediately approached respondent No.2 with an application on 23.02.2008 for correction of the date of birth entry in the hall-ticket. Evidently, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that the correction can be made by respondent No.1 after the marks list is issued. After receipt of the marks list, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of respondent No.1 on 20.12.2008 and submitted to respondent No.2 along with necessary application for correction of date of birth in the marks list. The said application was rejected by respondent No.1 and communicated to respondent No.2 by its proceedings dated 31.12.2009, wherein it is mentioned that as the application was required to be made within a period of one year of passing the ICSE examination, it is not possible to change the date of birth beyond this stipulated time. The petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition assailing the said action. In the counter affidavit filed by the Principal of respondent No.2 School, it has been, inter alia, averred that while registering the petitioner’s son’s entry in Class IX, his date of birth was entered wrongly as 16.02.1992 instead of 16.02.1993, that the said mistake was rectified by the then Principal after the check list was received in the month of October, 2007 from the council and that after verification and checking the entries of all the students, the mistake in respect of date of birth of the petitioner’s son was rectified. It is further averred that, however, due to oversight the rectified error as to the date of birth was not recorded in the checking of entries of Class IX, that when the petitioner approached respondent No.2, the latter made a request to respondent No.1 to correct the entries in the records, which were sent to it on 26.12.2007, that respondent No.1, however, did not make the correction and that after receipt of the hall-ticket in February 2008, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for correction of date of birth entry by paying Rs.1,000/- by way of demand draft. It is further stated that on receipt of the petitioner’s representations, the Principal has directed the School office to take necessary steps, that as the record was not traced for a long time, the petitioner’s application could not be forwarded within the time stipulated by the regulations and that the same was sent after the records were traced, which was rejected by respondent No.1 on the abovementioned ground. Respondent No.2 fairly conceded to the error committed by its office and pleaded that for such errors, the student cannot be penalized. As the rejection order passed by respondent No.1 was not served on the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 placed a copy of the same before the Court, a perusal of which shows that letter dated 03.12.2009 addressed by respondent No.2 with a request to correct the date of birth was rejected under Clause 5 of Chapter IV, as the said request was not made within a period of one year of passing the ICSE examination. A careful perusal of the regulations of respondent No.1, which are filed by the petitioner, shows that Clause 6 of Chapter IV of the said regulations deals with the correction of names or dates of birth of the students (in the communication of respondent No.1 made to respondent No.2, referred to above, Clause 5 is mentioned, which is obviously a mistake for Clause 6). Clause 6(b), which is relevant for this purpose, reads as under: “Correction of the Name/Date of Birth will be examined by the Council provided the application is made within a period of one year of passing the ICSE Examination.” From the Clause reproduced above, correction of name/date of birth is permissible, if an application is made within a period of one year of passing the ICSE Examination. From the admitted facts, referred to above, initially the petitioner has made an application to respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 immediately after the hall- ticket was issued on 16.02.2008 for correction of the wrong date of birth entry in the hall-ticket itself and even before commencement of the X Class examinations i.e., on 23.03.2008. It is also not in dispute that immediately after the results were declared, the petitioner has once again approached respondent No.2 for forwarding her application for correction of date of birth entry in the marks list. As the records could not be traced by respondent No.2, the delay occurred on its part in sending the petitioner’s application as late as 03.12.2009. The abovementioned regulation merely stipulates that the applications for correction of date of birth shall be made within a period of one year of passing the ICSE Examination. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to construe the above regulation to the effect that in computing the period of one year, the delay, if any occurred from the school side, shall not be reckoned and it would be rational and reasonable to treat the application to be within time, if the same had been made to the school concerned on behalf of the student within the period of one year of passing the ICSE Examination. In the light of the true spirit of the rule, the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s application as time barred runs contrary to the spirit of the rule. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to correct the date of birth entry of the petitioner’s son in the X class marks list and issue a revised marks list within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner through respondent No.2 school. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.1597 of 2010 for early disposal of the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.07.2010 ES