IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17552 of 2011(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.R. ARUN, S/O. REGHUNANDHANAN PILLAI, VAYALIL KULANGARA, AADINADU NORTH. P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL, SMT.P.SHYAMA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS, PRAGATI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR 47-48, NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, BISHOP MOORE VIDYAPITH, KRISHNAPURAM. P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALLAPUZHA-688 001. R1 BY ADV. MR.V.V. RAJA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 17552 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KOLLAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PASS CERTIFICATE IN INDIAN CERTIFICATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS IN INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08/03/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 16570/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17552 OF 2011 (T) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the 2nd respondent school. In the records of the 2nd respondent and also the certificate issued by the 1st respondent, his date of birth was recorded as 28/11/1989. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 25/11/1988. 2. Petitioner made an application seeking correction of the aforesaid alleged mistake. The 2nd respondent forwarded the application to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent thereupon rejected the application as per Ext.P4 order mainly for the reason that the application is belated, in as much as correction is possible only if application is made within a period of one year of passing the examination. It is challenging Ext.P4, the writ petition is filed. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, in view of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment in WA NO.1948/2008 and in several other judgments of similar nature, WPC No. 17552/11 :2 : inspite of the time frame fixed in the regulations and syllabuses of the 1st respondent, even a belated application made for correction of date of birth and such other particulars is liable to be entertained and considered on merit. Therefore, for that reason, the view taken in Ext.P4 is unsustainable and the application of the petitioner is liable to be reconsidered. 4. However, I find merit in the submission made by the standing counsel for the 1st respondent that if an application is made for correction, the same should be considered by the 2nd respondent and if correction is made in the school records, thereafter the records are to be forwarded to the 1st respondent for making correction in the certificates and other records. It is stated that such a process was not complied with by the 2nd respondent. 5. Taking note of the submission thus made by the standing counsel for the 1st respondent and the counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the aforesaid facts, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That the petitioner will make a fresh application to the 2nd respondent for correction of his date of birth duly supported WPC No. 17552/11 :3 : by other records. (2) It is directed that, on receipt of such application, the 2nd respondent will consider the request of the petitioner and if correction is ordered, the records will thereafter be forwarded to the 1st respondent, who on receipt thereof, will make appropriate enquiries and pass necessary orders on the application of the petitioner. (3) The 2nd respondent should complete the process within 4 weeks of receipt of the application and the 1st respondent should complete the aforesaid process within 8 weeks of its receipt from the 2nd respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp