IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28074 of 2010(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KANNAN.R., S/O.R.V.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, GEETHANJALI, VAVARAMBALAM, POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETHI VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110092. 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW NO.III J BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-40. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, SAINIK SCHOOL, SAINIK SCHOOL (P.O.), KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582. R1 & R2 BY SC FOR CBSE SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28074 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. 2. The petitioner was a student of the third respondent school and has completed his Plus Two course. According to the petitioner, his Date of Birth has been wrongly entered in the school records as 15-05-1990, as against 25-05-1989. He made an application to the third respondent for correction. That has been rejected by Ext.P5 order. Reason stated in Ext.P5 is that the request is inadmissible in view of the provisions contained in clause 69 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws. Yet another reason stated is that if the date of birth is corrected as sought for, that will make the petitioner ineligible to have studied being overage. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the counsel for the third respondent. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already completed the studies, I do not find any reason to interfere with the second objection stated in Ext.P5. 5. In so far as the delay in making the application, as WPC.28074/2010 : 2 : rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court, this Court has already held that irrespective of the provisions in the Examination Bye- laws, if a request for correction of date of birth is made, it should be considered on merits. Therefore, the first objection mentioned in Ext.P5 is also unsustainable. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioner produces the originals of Exts.P2 and P3 and other documents supporting his request for correction of his date of birth, along with a certified copy of this judgment, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the matter in the light of the above observations. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge