IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3534 of 2011(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BINI PAUL , AGED 22, D/O DR. PAUL T. KUNNATH, KUNNATH HOUSE, MARADY EAST,MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHA KENDRA 2 COMMUNITY CENTER, PREET VIHAR, DELHI 110 092. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SHIKSHA KENDRA 2 COMMUNITY CENTER, PREET VIHAR, DELHI 110092. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SAINT PETER'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KADAYIRUPPU ,KOLENCHERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA 682 311. 4. THE REGIONAL OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE PLOT NO.1630-A,ANNANAGAR WEST, J BLOCK CHENNAI 600040. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC., CBSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.3534 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the school of which the 3rd respondent is the Principal. 2. According to the petitioner, her date of birth is 21.10.1988. It is stated that in the school records and in the certificates issued by respondents 1, 2 and 4 her date of birth has been wrongly entered as 21.10.1989. She made Ext.P4 application to the 3rd respondent for correction of her date of birth. In response thereto, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P5 communication, informing that in view of the provisions contained in C.B.S.E Examination Bye-laws , application is belated and therefore it cannot be forwarded to the 4th respondent. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 3. As far as the delay now held against the petitioner in Ext.P5 communication is concerned, in various judgments including the judgment in W. A No.1948/2008 and other judgments, this Court has already held that irrespective of the time limit prescribed in the C.B.S.E W.P (C) No. 3534 of 2011 2 Examination Bye-laws, even an application filed beyond the time frame is liable to be considered on merits. Therefore the delay pointed out in Ext.P5 is unsustainable. 4. In that view of the matter , I dispose of this writ petition directing that on production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the judgment referred to above, the 3rd respondent will re- consider the application made by the petitioner. 5. As pointed out by the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1,2 and 4, I direct that if the application of the petitioner is found to be genuine, the 3rd respondent shall make correction in the school records and thereafter forward the application made by the petitioner with recommendation to the 4th respondent, who thereupon shall conduct necessary enquiry and pass orders on the application of the petitioner. This shall be done by both parties, expeditiously. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge