IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 38110 of 2007(J)
1. NAVIN M.S,AGED 16,S/O.SANAL KUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY SECRETARY,CENTRAL BOARD OF
3. JOIN SECRETARY,REGIONAL OFFICE,CENTRAL
4. THE PRINCIPAL,TALENT PUBLIC SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.FAZIL
For Respondent :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 38110 OF 2007 J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29 th January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The prayer made in this writ petition is for quashing Ext. P5
and for directing respondents 2 and 3 to change the date of birth of
the petitioner from 14.8.1991 to 14.2.1991 in the records
maintained by the Board and thereafter to issue a fresh Secondary
School Examination certificate incorporating the correct date of
birth of the petitioner.
2. Petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner as
entered in the school records was 14.8.1991. Complaining that
there was a mistake committed, Ext. P3 application was made by his
father to have the date of birth corrected as 14.2.1991. That
correction was allowed by the school authorities and by Ext. P4, the
school authorities forwarded the records to the 2nd respondent for
carrying out the correction in their records and for issuing necessary
certificate on that basis. However, the request has been turned
W.P.(C) No. 38110 OF 2007 -2-
down by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P5 order stating that in view of
Rule 69.2(i) of the Examination Bye-laws 1995, the request made is
impermissible. According to the 2nd respondent, on verification of
the original school records they found that the date of birth of the
petitioner was 14.8.1991 and that the same was printed in the
school certificates. A reading of Rule 69.2(i) referred to above
shows that corrections in the date of birth 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 the application.
It is presumably on this basis that it is stated in Ext. P5 that the date
of birth mentioned in the school certificate is the same date which is
mentioned in the school records.
3. While taking the aforesaid stand, the 2nd respondent has
forgotten the fact that the school records have been corrected and
that the correction sought for is only to make the date of birth in
the records maintained by the 2nd respondent consistent with the
records maintained in the school. If that be so, even going by rule
69.2(i), the correction sought for by the petitioner is certainly
permissible. The conclusion to the contrary seen in Ext. P5 cannot
W.P.(C) No. 38110 OF 2007 -3-
be sustained and for that reason Ext. P5 deserves to be quashed
and I do so.
4. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P4 and
allow the correction of date of birth by correcting the date
incorporated in Ext. P1 to make it consistent with the date indicated
in Ext. P2 birth certificate. The correction as above will be
incorporated in the records as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-