IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17040 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY SINI WILFRED ROCHE, D/O.WILFRED ROCHE, AGED 24 YEARS, ROCH VILLA, KANNIMEL COMPOUND, THANGASSERI.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION, NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 2. THE PRINCIPAL MOUNT CARMEL CON. ANGLO- INDIAN SCHOOL, THANGASSERI, KOLLAM-691 007. SRI. V.V. RAJA, SC, ICSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17040 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE P2 : COPY OF CISCE CERTIFICATE P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION P4 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGULATIONS OF CISCE P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPN08578/11 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17040 OF 2011 (D) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a student of the school of which the 2nd respondent is the Principal. According to the petitioner, though her date of birth is 9/12/1987, in the school records and the certificate issued by the 1st respondent, her date of birth was recorded as 8/12/1987. She made an application to the 2nd respondent for correction of the said mistake. That application was forwarded to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 communication to the 2nd respondent rejecting the request mainly on the ground that the application is belated. It is challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, an issue of similar nature has been dealt with by this Court as is seen from Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C) No.8578/11 and therefore this writ petition can also be disposed of on similar terms. In the said judgment, following the principles laid down by the Division WPC No. 17040/11 :2 : Bench of this Court in the judgment in WA No.1948/2008, it was held that irrespective of the time frame fixed in the bye laws of the 1st respondent, even if a belated application is made, the same is liable to be considered on merits. In that view of the matter, the reasons stated in Ext.P3 for rejecting the request of the petitioner cannot be upheld. 4. Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by the standing counsel for the 1st respondent, on receipt of the application from the petitioner, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the same in the light of the materials produced and if correction is ordered, forward the records to the 1st respondent for making necessary further corrections in their records. Since that procedure was not followed by the 2nd respondent, I direct that, it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the 2nd respondent seeking correction of her date of birth in the school records. It is directed that, on receipt of such application, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and if correction is ordered as sought, the records will be forwarded to the 1st respondent for making necessary corrections in their records. The 2nd respondent shall complete the exercise within 4 weeks of WPC No. 17040/11 :3 : receipt of the application and if the records are forwarded, the 1st respondent will complete consequential action within 8 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp