IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8225 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.YASODHARAN, S/O. DEVADASAN, NALANDA, KALAKODE P.O., POOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.ANILKUMAR, SMT.A.ARSHA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW NO.3 (OLD NO.1630-A) M.S.BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-600 040. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS, REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.1630, AJ BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR(WEST), CHENNAI-600 040. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC, CBSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 8225 of 2010-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner's daughter had passed Secondary School Examination in 2006 and she had studied at MGM Model School, Ayroor, Varkala. At the time of joining the school, the date of birth of the petitioner's daughter was given as 15.5.1991. Ext.P1 is the photo copy of the true copy of the mark statement issued by the CBSE in which the date of birth is entered as 15.5.1991. Ext.P2 is the copy of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation which shows that the actual date of birth of the petitioner's daughter is 5.2.1990. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application for correcting the date of birth of his daughter in Ext.P1 mark statement. The application was submitted to the Principal of the School who forwarded the application to the respondents. It is submitted that the same has been rejected by letter dated 18.2.2010, produced as Ext.P4. Mainly, it is pointed out that Rule 69.2 and other rules of the Examination Bye-laws have been relied upon to reject the application. The petitioner is relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court produced as Ext.P5. wpc8225 /2010 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE. 3. This Court has already considered similar matters in various writ petitions. The view taken in Ext.P4 cannot be supported in the light of the various judgments of this Court including Ext.P5 judgment in W.A. No.1948/2008 and connected cases. In W.A. No.1948/2008 and connected cases, a Division Bench of this Court considered the matter elaborately. In the said case, this Court had passed an interim order on 1.4.2009, para 4 of which reads as follows: “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 interest 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 wpc8225 /2010 3 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 conditions.” In the judgment, the Division Bench referred to an affidavit filed by the CBSE on 4.8.2009 in the said case, wherein it was stated that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the appellant therein had constituted a committee and the committee has decided to take appropriate action for correction of the date of birth. Relevant communication addressed by the CBSE to the Regional Office, Chennai was extracted in the said judgment wherein condition No.1 is the recommendation to correct the date of birth of the candidates who had applied to CBSE after two years as stipulated in the CBSE bye-laws and condition No.2 is to change the date of birth of the candidates who had the birth certificate which is issued by the statutory body so that they may not face any difficulty on account of inconsistent date of birth in different documents. It is clear from the said communication that the recommendation of the committee has been approved by the competent authority of the CBSE. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the CBSE to take action for the correction of date of birth in the school records, wpc8225 /2010 4 within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Any outer time limit provided in the byelaws for entertaining an application cannot be taken as a bar for exercise of power and the period provided can only be termed as a period for the convenience of the administrative authorities alone. 4. In the light of the directions issued the Division Bench in the above judgment, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Therefore, Ext.P4 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to verify the particulars in terms of the birth certificate in original issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and to effect correction in the school records relating to the petitioner's daughter. The respondents shall issue a corrected copy of Ext.P1 to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/