IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 9075 of 2009(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SRUTHI CHOYAN KANNOTH, D/O.MR.E.V.BALAKRISHNAN, SREENILAYAM, P.O.EDAKKOM, VIA THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. 3. PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KELTRON NAGAR, P.O.KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 9075/2009(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 28/05/91 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH. P2: COPY OF THE MARK STATEMENT DATED 24/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE PASS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/05/2005. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 11/06/2007. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 17/04/2008. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/05/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9075 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the 3rd respondent school. In the marks statement and passing certificate issued by the 2nd respondent, her date of birth was shown as 18/1/90. Her father made an application to the school for getting the date of birth in the aforesaid documents corrected as 19/1/90. 2. From Ext.P5, it would appear that the 3rd respondent forwarded the request of the petitioner to the 1st respondent enclosing the application and other documents. Ext.P5 also states that, on verification of the list of candidates sent from the school, though in the school records, her date of birth has been recorded as 19/1/90, it was wrongly recorded as 18/1/90. It is on account of the above mistake committed by the school,that in the marks statement and passing certificate, date of birth of the petitioner was erroneously shown as 18/1/90. 3. Orders on the application were not communicated to the petitioner or her father. Finally, Ext.P6 lawyer notice was issued to the 1st respondent. In Ext.P7 reply issued on behalf of WPC No. 9075/09 :2 : the 1st respondent, it was informed that the date of birth was mentioned in the marks statement and passing certificate, based on the school records and that the correction has to be made firstly in the school records. It is also stated that in terms of Rule 69.2 of the CBSE Examination Byelaws, correction is permissible only within two yeas from the date of publication of results. It is challenging Ext.P7 and seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to correct the date of birth of the petitioner, the writ petition has been filed. 4. As far as the statement in Ext.P7 that school records should be got corrected first is concerned, that stand of the 1st respondent is incorrect, which is evident from Ext.P5 letter issued by the 3rd respondent itself. In that letter, the 3rd respondent has confessed that though in the school records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 19/1/90, in the list of candidates sent from their office, date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 18/1/90. Therefore, there is nothing to be corrected in the school records. 5. As far as the impact of Rule 69.2 of the CBSE Examination Byelaws is concerned, in several judgments, this WPC No. 9075/09 :3 : Court has taken the view that irrespective of the time limit prescribed in the said rule, any application received by the CBSE is liable to be considered on merits and orders are liable to be passed on that basis. Therefore, the fact that application has been made beyond the two years can be no reason for rejecting the application of the threshold itself. Therefore, both reasons stated in Ext.P7 reply are unsustainable. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that on receipt of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent will reconsider the application made by the petitioner's father seeking correction of her daughter's date of birth in the mark statement and passing certificate in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner. On the other hand, if the application made by the petitioner has already been returned to the 3rd respondent, it is directed that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 3rd respondent shall forward the application to the 1st respondent, who shall pass fresh orders in the matter in the light of the above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp