IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5081 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ASHIK SAHADEVAN, AGED 17 YEARS, REP.BY HIS FATHER K.U.SAHADEVAN, KOLATE HOSUE, P.O.ERAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.FEBIN J.VELUKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER,CBSE REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.1630,ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI - 600 040. 2. THE PRINCIPAL S.N.VIDYA BHAVAN, CHENDRAPPINNI - 680 687,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 5081 of 2010-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the father of Master Ashik Sahadevan, a minor presently pursuing his studies in Standard XII at the second respondent educational institution. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking effective steps to correct an inadvertent mistake that had crept in with regard to the date of birth recorded in the school certificate. 2. The petitioner's son passed the AISSE in the year 2008. Ext.P1 is the certificate and Ext.P1(a) is the mark list issued to the petitioner. In Exts.P1 and P1(a) the date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly entered as 10.4.1993 instead of 10.4.1992. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner took immediate steps to rectify the said mistake by preferring an application in the prescribed format with the second respondent to be forwarded to the first respondent who is the competent authority to correct such mistakes. Along with the said application, the petitioner also attached a copy of the birth certificate of his son issued by the Thrissur Municipality which shows that the correct date of birth is wpc5081 /2010 2 10.4.1992. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the Municipality. The second respondent had forwarded the application and Ext.P2 certificate to the first respondent in order to rectify the mistake. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent requested the second respondent to produce the relevant school records in order to process the application. Ext.P3 evidences the said fact. The petitioner submits hat at the time when the petitioner's son joined the second respondent institution, Ext.P2 birth certificate was produced. Since the first respondent has not taken any action, the second respondent sent repeated requests and Ext.P4 is one such letter dated 10.11.2009. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to take effective steps to rectify the date of birth erroneously entered as 10.4.1993 to 10.4.1992 in Ext.P1 certificate and Ext.P1(a) mark list. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE. 4. In the judgment in W.P.(C) No.25028/08 a learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering various aspects, held thus in para 4: “In so far as the bye-law is concerned, the same is not statutory in nature. Therefore, I do not think that the prescription in the bye-law is absolute in nature. At the best it is only directory in nature. wpc5081 /2010 3 Therefore, in appropriate cases the respondents can make correction of the date of birth even beyond the period prescribed therein. In fact, it has been held so by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.37476/2004. I am in complete agreement with the said decision. Therefore, I am satisfied that the respondents are liable to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the school records as well as Exts.P1 and P2, if the petitioner with sufficient documents, proves that his date of birth is 14.4.1990.” In W.A.No.1948/2008 and connected cases a Division Bench considered the same issue. An interim order passed by this Court on 1.4.2009 has been extracted therein. The Division Bench was of the view that in the interest of poor students who are placed in the unfortunate situation, the CBSE should consider their cases sympathetically. It was also mentioned that 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. Hence, Rule 69.2(iv) of the Examination Byelaws cannot be a bar for considering the application. 5. In the light of the directions issued by this Court in the above two judgments, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. As the application along with the required documents including the birth certificate, have been wpc5081 /2010 4 submitted, the first respondent is directed to take appropriate action in the matter for correcting the date of birth, within a period of one month 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/