IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11154 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- FRANA JANMES, D/O. JAMES JACOB, PAMAPACKAL, ANTHINAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY(REGIONAL OFFICER), CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO. 1630-A, ANNA NAGAR WEST, J-BLOCK, CHENNAI-600040. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, CHAVARA PUBLIC SCHOOL, PALA. BY STANDING COUNSEL SHRI DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 11154 of 2010-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner passed the 10th standard examination conducted by the first respondent in March 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that some clerical error happened to be entered in the school records relating to her date of birth. Her actual date of birth is 30.5.1988 and it is wrongly entered as 30.5.1989 in the school records. Ext.P1 is the copy of the birth certificate issued by the Arpookara Grama Panchayat. Ext.P2 is the copy of the certificate issued by the third respondent. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner approached the second respondent seeking correction of her date of birth in Ext.P2. But the second respondent issued a communication to the 4th respondent rejecting the application. Ext.P3 is the copy of the same. The petitioner is presently studying for the final year B.Tech at National Institute of Technology at Kozhikode. She wanted to correct her date of birth for future use. She approached the 4th respondent and enquired about the fate of her application and then only she came to understand that her application was rejected. Again she filed Ext.P5 application in the prescribed format accompanied by the necessary wpc 11154/2010 2 supporting documents. It is the case of the petitioner that so far respondents 1 to 3 have not issued any communication to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon Ext.P4 judgment of this Court rendered in similar circumstances. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to make necessary correction in her date of birth as entered in Ext.P2 certificate. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE. 3. This Court has already considered similar matters in various writ petitions. The respondents are binding on the decisions rendered by this Court in similar circumstances, especially in the light of the various judgment of this Court including W.A. No.1948/2008 and connected cases. In W.A. No.1948/2008 and connected cases (Ext.P4), in which 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 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 wpc 11154/2010 3 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 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 wpc 11154/2010 4 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. There will be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to verify the particulars in terms of the birth certificate in original issued by the third respondent and to effect correction in the school records relating to the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 shall issue a corrected copy of Ext.P2 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