IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29755 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BASIL THOMAS S/O.K.U.,THOMAS, AGED 22 YEARS, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, M.A.COLLEGE PO, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.SUGUNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATHS, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, VIMALAGIRI PUBLIC SCHOOL, KOTHAMANGALAM ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, ILLAHIA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, MULAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW PLOT NO.3(OLD PLOT NO.1630A)J.BLOCK ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI. SC SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRN SRI. V.K. KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29755 OF 2010(T) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the 2nd respondent School. According to him, his date of birth entered in the school records is erroneous. Therefore he made an application seeking correction. It appears that the School authorities have forwarded the application to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent by Ext.P4 rejected the application mainly relying on clause 69(2) of the CBSE Examination Bye Laws. It is challenging Ext.P4 that this writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner, standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. In several cases including Ext.P5, this court has taken the view that even in spite of the time frame indicated in clause 69 of the Examination Bye Laws, if an application for correction of school records is received, the 4th respondent is bound to consider the same on merits. Admittedly such a consideration has not been given to the application made by the petitioner. Therefore WPC.No. 29755/2010 :2 : Ext.P4 order of the 4th respondent rejecting the application made by the petitioner as belated deserves to be set aside and I do so. 4. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner in the light of the judgment referred to above and on merits. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/