IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34373 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.KARANAKARAN,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHANDU,'KARUNA',ATHIYAMBOOR,KANHANGAD.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION,NEW NO.3,'J'BLOCK,16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR(WEST),CHENNAI-600 040,REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGIONAL OFFICER. 2. THE PRINCIPAL,JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA,PERIYA,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC FOR CBSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34373 of 2010 V ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5. Petitioner states that his son Vishnu K.V. was a student of the second respondent school. According to the petitioner, in the school records, the Date of Birth of the child was recorded as 28-02-1991 instead of 28-02-1990. An application was made for correction of the Date of Birth in the certificate issued by the CBSE which is rejected by Ext.P5. 2. Two reasons are stated in Ext.P5. First is that the Date of Birth entered in the certificate is as recorded in the school records. However, referring to Ext.P1, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the school records have already been corrected and that as per the school records, the Date of Birth of the child is 28-02-1990. Consequently, it is contended that the aforesaid reason in Ext.P5 is incorrect. W.P.(C) No.34373/10 : 2 : 3. The second reason stated in Ext.P5 is that in terms of clause 69(2) of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, the request received from the petitioner was belated and, therefore, cannot be entertained. In so far as this reasoning stated in Ext.P5 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that in several judgments, this Court has taken the view that irrespective of the time frame prescribed in clause 69(2) of the CBSE Examination Bye- laws, even if the request made is belated, the authorities are bound to consider the same on merits. For this reason, the second ground mentioned in Ext.P5 is also erroneous. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I quash Ext.P5 and direct that the first respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and W.P.(C) No.34373/10 : 3 : writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge