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. 10564 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NUMRATA VIJOY ARORA, D/O.SUSHIL VIJOY ARORA, RESIDING AT J.M.TOWERS, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (REGIONAL OFFICE), NEW NO.3.(OLD NO.1630-A), 'J' BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI-600 404, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER. 2. CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. R1 BY S.C. SHRI DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN 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. 10564 of 2010 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner studied in the 2nd respondent school which is affiliated to the first respondent. She passed the senior school certificate examination in May 2009. While submitting application for registration for 10th class board examination the 2nd respondent school authorities committed an inadvertent error in entering the date of birth of the petitioner. Immediately thereafter the petitioner approached the first respondent for correction of the date of birth, but the first respondent rejected the same. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for correction of date of birth, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner was born on 24.6.1991. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Cochin corporation. Ext.P2 is the true copy of the relevant page of the passport of the petitioner showing the correct date of birth. Exts.P3 to P5 also evidences the correct date of birth of the petitioner. Exts.P6 and P7 are the true copies of mark statement and certificate issued by the first respondent wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly entered as 2.10.1991. wpc 10564/2010 2 It is submitted that the petitioner obtained Exts.P6 and P7 only after publication of the results of Class 12 examination. The petitioner thereafter approached the first respondent for correction of her date of birth. But, as per Ext.P8 order, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth. The main reason shown therein is that as per Rule 69.2(iv) of the Examination Byelaws, the request for correction of date of birth will be entertained within two years from the date of declaration of results of Class X Examination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in various decisions, the reasons stated in Ext.P8 cannot be supported. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE. 4. This Court has already considered similar matters in various writ petitions. The view taken in Ext.P8 cannot be supported in the light of the various judgments of this Court including W.A. No.1948/2008 and connected cases. In W.A. No.1948/2008 and connected cases, 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 wpc 10564/2010 3 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 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 wpc 10564/2010 4 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 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. 5. In the light of the directions issued the Division Bench in the above judgment, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Therefore, Ext.P8 is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to verify the particulars in terms of the birth certificate in original issued by the corporation of Cochin and to effect correction in the wpc 10564/2010 5 school records relating to the petitioner. The first respondent shall issue a corrected copy of Exts.P6 and P7 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/