IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1948 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20529/2008 Dated 29/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW PLOT NO.3.(OLD PLOT NO.1630A)(J.BLOCK)ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-40 REP.BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,NEW PLOT NO-3 ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. R. RAHUL, AGED 18, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ASARIAZHIKKAKATH, MANJAKKALA P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, THE SABARIGIRI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P. GEORGE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, ALONG WITH WA No. 1949 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1948, 1949, 2043, 901, 895, OF 2008 W.A.No. 940 OF 2009, WP(C) Nos.13004, 28213, 19523 OF 2008, WP(C) No.6312 OF 2007, WP(C) Nos. 6030, 12857, 14977, 8361, 9715, 21138, 17735 and 21734 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The issue raised in these writ appeals and writ petitions pertains to the issue regarding the correction in the date of birth by the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) in the school records. On 01.04.09 this Court passed the following order: “The issue involved in these cases pertains to the pathetic plight to which the students are put, either on account of a mistake committed by the institutions where the students were originally admitted or on account of an inadvertent mistake committed by the parents while admitting the children in the schools, in the matter of difference in date of birth. 2. Heard Sri.Ramakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Central Board of Secondary Education, Sri.Devan Ramachandran and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/students. The learned senior counsel appearing for the CBSE submits that Bye-law 69(2) of the Examination Byelaws of the Central Board of WA No.1948/08 & connected cases. -:2:- Secondary Education normally does not permit any correction in the date of birth and if at all any clerical errors are to be corrected, steps in that regard have to be taken within two years of the date of declaration of the results of Class X examination. In these cases, the factual situation is that the applications are not made within two years from the date of declaration of results of Class X examination. In some cases, there is delay only of a few days and in some other cases, the delay is of a few months. In some cases, the undisputed factual position is that the mistake had been condoned by the institution. We also find that in some other cases, the correction as sought for is to the disadvantage of the students since by the correction, they only stand to lose from the point of view of their age. Still further, we take note of the fact that at the time of passing Class X examination and two years thereafter also, the children are only in their age of minority. 3. Learned senior counsel, inviting reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. MD.Sarifuz Zaman and others [(2003)12 Supreme Court Cases 408] submits that the Regulation is not directory, but mandatory. If that be so, no application can be entertained beyond two years since the period prescribed is two years and there is no provision to condone the delay. Learned counsel appearing for the students however submits that it would lead to an unfortunate situation of the law itself becoming exposed to a helpless situation, making the law- maker itself unable to tackle an otherwise unjust situation. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that despite the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme WA No.1948/08 & connected cases. -:3:- Court did not interfere with the direction already issued by the Gauhati High Court, and in the case of those students, the correction of date of birth was permitted, though the applications in those cases were submitted beyond two years. 4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should be considered afresh by the CBSE itself. Therefore, without proceeding further as regards the question of law involved in these cases as to whether the Examination Bye- laws of the CBSE is directory or mandatory in nature, we feel that in the interests of the poor students who are placed in the unfortunate situations referred to above, the CBSE should consider their cases sympathetically, as has been done in the case of students referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above. After all, the correction is not for any undue or unmerited advantage like extension in service; but only for reconciling the date of birth as appearing in the Register of Registrar of Births and Deaths. In the above circumstances, we direct the CBSE to consider the case of the students referred to in these cases sympathetically, leaving open the question of law, and consider whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the situations referred to in each case, correction in the date of birth can be permitted. We make it clear that these directions are issued only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, and not as a general direction.” 2. The appellant CBSE has filed an affidavit dated 04.08.09 wherein it is stated that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the appellant had constituted a committee and the WA No.1948/08 & connected cases. -:4:- committee has decided to take appropriate action for correction of the date of birth. Annexure A is the communication addressed by the CBSE to the Regional Officer, Chennai. Relevant portion of the communication reads as follows: “Pursuant to the above orders the Competent Authority of CBSE had constituted a Committee comprising of HOD (Edusat), Section Officer(Co-ordination) and Section Officer (Legal) to look into each cases and submit its report. The Committee recommended the following: 1. To correct the Date of birth of the candidates who had applied to CBSE after 2 years as stipulated in the CBSE Byelaws. 2. Change the date of birth of the candidates who had the birth certificate which is issued by Statutory Body so that they may not face any difficulty on account of in consistent date of birth in different documents. In order to avoid any difference in date of birth for deciding future cases, the CBSE has also amended the Examination Bye-laws. The date of birth in which the certificate issued by Municipal Authority will also be obtained by the school, at the time of admission of a student in the school. The recommendation of the Committee has been approved by the Competent Authority of CBSE. Hence in all the writ petitions/writ appeals the prayer made by the candidates/petitioners have been acceded to by CBSE.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the WA No.1948/08 & connected cases. -:5:- light of the decision taken by the CBSE as extracted above, action will be taken for the correction in the date of birth of the School records within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The above submission is recorded and all the writ appeals and writ petitions are hence closed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge. ttb