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/
