IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32717 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AJAYANAND, S/O. ANANDAN, 'SURABHI', T.C. 11/2735, PANAVILA, NALANCHIRA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION, PRAGATHI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 47-48,NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110505, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION, PRAGATHI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 47-48, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110505. 3. THE PRINCIPLA, SARVODAYA VIDYALAYA, MAR IVANIOS VIDYA NAGAR, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695015. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 32717 of 2011(L) -------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS -------------------------------- EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.N/VII-327/2011/941 DATED 18-11-2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32717/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a student of the School of which the third respondent is the Principal. According to the petitioner, though his actual date of birth is 25.12.1988, in the School records and certificates issued, it has been wrongly recorded as 25.12.1989. Petitioner's father submitted an application to the first respondent for correcting the aforesaid mistake. In reply, Ext.P3 has been issued stating that the 'one year' period specified in the Regulations has expired and therefore, a Court order is required. In other words the application has been rejected on the ground that it is belated. 2. In several cases of this nature, this Court has held that irrespective of the expiry of time specified in the Regulations of the first respondent, even belated applications are liable to be entertained and considered on merits. Therefore, the rejection of the application, on the ground that it is belated, cannot be accepted. 3. Consistent with the above, this writ petition is also disposed of quashing Ext.P3 and directing the second respondent to reconsider W.P.(C).32717/11 2 the application made for correction of the petitioner's date of birth. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge