IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30114 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- FATHIMATH SHAHANA.A.T., D/O.ABDUL KAREEM.E.T., MINOR, REP. BY HER FATHER ABDUL KAREEM.E.T., SANZIL FORT ROAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT SECRETARY, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI- 600 001. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SHIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETHIVIHEN, NEWDELHI- 110 001. 3. JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, PERIYA, KASARAGOD – 671 121. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, PERIYA, KASARAGOD – 671 121. R1 & R2 BY SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, S.C, C.B.S.E, R3 & R4 BY ADV.SRI. P.K. VIJAYA MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 30114 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 4. 2. According to the petitioner, there is a mistake in her date of birth in the school records, pass certificate and mark list, and therefore by Ext.P4 she made an application for its correction. The School authorities forwarded the application to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent by Ext.P5 rejected the application on the ground that in view of the provisions contained in Clause 69 of the Examination Bye Laws, the application was belated. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition has been filed. 3. In Ext.P6 judgment dated 05/08/2009 in WP(C) No.21138/2009 rendered by this Court and also in several other cases, this Court has held that even if the application is beyond the time limit specified in Clause 69 of the Examination Bye-Laws, the WP(C) No.30114/2010 -2- 1st respondent is bound to consider the applications received for correction of date of births, on merits. In that view, Ext.P5 order cannot be said to be one, considering the claim of the petitioner, on merits. Therefore, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained and I set aside Ext.P5. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court, and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg