Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Karthika.K.J. vs Central Board Of Secondary … on 19 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1856 of 2011(F)


1. KARTHIKA.K.J., D/O.JINAN.K.R.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD

3. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :19/01/2011

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
             --------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) NO.1856 OF 2011(F)
             --------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was a student of the School of which the 3rd

respondent is the Principal. Ext.P2 shows that the petitioner

completed her studies and the first respondent issued certificates

on 26.5.2009. According to the petitioner, in the school records of

respondents 1 and 2, her date of birth has been entered as

12.3.1994 instead of 12.11.1992. It is stated that seeking

correction of the said mistake petitioner submitted Ext.P3

application to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent

forwarded the application to the 2nd respondent under the cover

of Ext.P4. That application of the petitioner has now been rejected

by Ext.P5 communication issued by the 2nd respondent. A reading

of Ext.P2 shows that according to the 2nd respondent, the 3rd

respondent forwarded the application without complying with the

provisions of the CBSE examination bye laws.

2. Heard the standing counsel or respondents 1 and 2 and

the 3rd respondent.

WPC.No.1836 /2011
:2 :

3. Going by the date shown in Ext.P2 certificate issued by

the 2nd respondent the application made by the petitioner cannot

be said to be belated. However, standing counsel appearing for

the respondents 1 and 2 pointed out that on receipt of the

application, the 3rd respondent is expected to consider the

application and make corrections in the school records and then

forward the application with his recommendations to the 2nd

respondent. It is submitted that as against these rules on receipt

of the application 3rd respondent simply forwarded the application

of the petitioner and it was therefore the application had to be

rejected.

4. In view of the submission so made by the Standing

Counsel all that is required is that the 3rd respondent should

reconsider the application made by the petitioner and if he is

satisfied about the genuineness of the request and make

corrections in the school records, then the application of the

petitioner shall be forwarded to the 2nd respondent with his

recommendations for appropriate action. It is ordered that action

shall be taken as ordered above. On receipt of the application as

above,the 2nd respondent shall, if necessary, conduct an enquiry

WPC.No.1836 /2011
:3 :

and pass orders in the matter which shall be done at any rate

within 8 weeks thereafter.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a

copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for

compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.116 seconds.