IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1263 of 2008()
1. DEPUTY SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF
... Petitioner
2. JOINT SECRETARY, REGIONAL OFFICE,
Vs
1. NAVIN.M.S., AGED 16, S/O.SANAL KUMAR,
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE PRINCIPAL, TALENT PUBLIC SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS, CGC
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1263 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
The Central Board of Secondary Education (for short ‘the
Board’) through its Deputy and Joint Secretary at the Regional Office in
Chennai, has preferred this Writ Appeal challenging the order passed by
the learned Single Judge directing the Board to alter the date of birth of
the Writ petitioner in its records.
2. The petitioner is a student of Talent Public School,
Narakkal, which is affiliated to the Board. At the time of admission of
the petitioner in the school, his date of birth was shown as August 14,
1991. Apparently, it was realised by the petitioner later, that a mistake
had crept in while entering the above date in the school records. The
Registrar of Births and Deaths Kuzhupilly Grama Panchayat had issued
Ext.P2 birth certificate indicating the correct date of birth of the
petitioner as February,14, 1991. Therefore, on a request made by the
petitioner, the school authorities had corrected the date of birth in its
records by incorporating the above date. Subsequently a request was
W.A.No.1263/2008 -2-
made by the petitioner before the Board to carry out necessary
rectification in the records incorporating the correct date of birth. The
said request was turned down on the plea that, clause 69.2 of the
Examination Bye-laws interdicted the Board from making such a
change. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner had
approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for
appropriate reliefs.
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival
contentions of the parties, particularly the submission made on behalf of
the Board relying on the clause referred to above, took the view that the
Board was not justified in declining the request made by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and
directed the Board to carry out the correction of date of birth of the
petitioner consistent with the date indicated in the birth certificate issued
by the statutory authority. The above direction issued by the learned
Single Judge is impugned in this writ appeal.
4. Sri.Devan Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants places heavy reliance on clause 69.2 of the bye-laws
and contends that no change in the date of birth, can be made in its
records under any circumstances. He contends that what was sought for
W.A.No.1263/2008 -3-
by the petitioner was a change in the date of birth. The Board was bound
to maintain its records consistent with the original entry made in the
school records. Any alteration or rectification in the date of birth at a
later point of time will amount to a ‘change’ which is interdicted by
clause 69.2 of the bye-laws. We are unable to agree with this
submission.
5. Clause 69.2 of the Examination Bye-laws reads thus:
69.2 Change/Correction in Date of Births
i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in
the Board’s records shall be made. However, corrections
to correct typographical and other errors to make the
certificate consistent with the school records can be made
provided that corrections in the school records should not
have been made after the submission of application form
for admission to Examination to the Board.
ii). Such correction in Date of Birth of a candidate
in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under
orders of the Chairman where it is established to the
satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was
made erroneously in the list of candidates/application
form of the candidate for the examination.
iii). Request for correction in Date of Birth shall
be forwarded by the Head of the School along with
attested Photostat copies of:
a) application for admission of the candidate to the
School.
b) portion of the page of admission and
W.A.No.1263/2008 -4-
withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been
made: and
c) the School Leaving Certificate of the previous
school submitted at the time of admission.
iv). The application for correction in date of birth
duly forwarded by the Head of School alongwith
documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2 (iii) shall be
entertained by the Board only within two years of the date
of declaration of result of Class X examination. No
correction whatsoever shall be made on application
submitted after the said period of two years. This will be
effective from the examination to be held in March, 1995.”
6. A perusal of sub clause (1) undoubtedly shows that
correction of typographical or other errors can be made in the records
of the Board to make it consistent with the School records. But it is
contended by the learned counsel that the school authorities were not
justified in allowing the correction of the date of birth after the
submission of the application form for admission. However, a perusal
of Ext.P4 shows that the Board had more or less acceded to the request
made on behalf of the petitioner, in the above communication addressed
by the school authorities. More importantly the school authorities had
only carried out correction of “an error” in its records, in tune with the
Birth certificate issued by the statutory authority. The learned Single
Judge in our view, had correctly construed clause 69.2 of the Bye-laws.
W.A.No.1263/2008 -5-
In any view of the matter, we do not find any error or illegality in the
order impugned in this writ appeal.
The writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS