IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7245 of 2010(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- NANDU B., AGED 17 YEARS,(MINOR) BABURAJAN B.GURUKRIPA, EAREM, KARAMCODE PO, KOLLAM 691 579, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER MR.BABURAJAN.B. BY ADVS.MR.V.SANTHARAM MR.ANTO THOMAS MR.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETHY VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 092 HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.3(OLD NO.1630-A) J-BLOCK, 6TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR(WEST),CHENNAI- 600 040, REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY. 2. SREE NARAYANAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM-10,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL. BY ADV. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC CBSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 7245 of 2010-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is studying in 12th standard in the second respondent school which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. 2. The petitioner passed out the Secondary School Examination held in March, 2008 with roll number 4141518. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the mark statement and Ext.P2 is the certificate showing that the petitioner has passed the Secondary School Examination held in March, 2008. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was studying in Kanichery L.P. school up to standard 3, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 10.5.1993 instead of 10.5.1992. From 4th standard onwards, the petitioner was continuing his studies in the second respondent school. But in the school records the date of birth is written as 10.5.1993, which according to the petitioner, is due to an inadvertent mistake. Ext.P3 is the copy of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kollam Corporation showing the correct date of birth of the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, clause 69.2 of the Examination wpc 7245/2010 2 Byelaws is not mandatory and it is only directory. Ext.P4 is the application submitted by the petitioner before the second respondent on 17.12.2009 seeking to correct the date of birth, which was forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent as per Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the communication of the first respondent rejecting the application relying upon clause 69(2)(i) of the Examination Bye-laws. 5. The petitioner is relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1948/08 and connected cases, produced as Ext.P7. 6. This Court has already considered similar matters in various writ petitions. The view taken in Ext.P6 cannot be supported in the light of the various judgments of this Court including 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 wpc 7245/2010 3 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 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 wpc 7245/2010 4 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, 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.P6 is quashed. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to verify the particulars in terms of the birth certificate in original wpc 7245/2010 5 issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kollam Corporation, and to effect correction in the school records relating to the petitioner. The first respondent shall issue a corrected copy of Ext.P1 to the petitioner within 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/