IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9075 of 2009(D)
1. SRUTHI CHOYAN KANNOTH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,
3. PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 9075 OF 2009 (D)
=====================
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a student of the 3rd respondent school. In the
marks statement and passing certificate issued by the 2nd
respondent, her date of birth was shown as 18/1/90. Her father
made an application to the school for getting the date of birth in
the aforesaid documents corrected as 19/1/90.
2. From Ext.P5, it would appear that the 3rd respondent
forwarded the request of the petitioner to the 1st respondent
enclosing the application and other documents. Ext.P5 also states
that, on verification of the list of candidates sent from the school,
though in the school records, her date of birth has been recorded
as 19/1/90, it was wrongly recorded as 18/1/90. It is on account
of the above mistake committed by the school,that in the marks
statement and passing certificate, date of birth of the petitioner
was erroneously shown as 18/1/90.
3. Orders on the application were not communicated to
the petitioner or her father. Finally, Ext.P6 lawyer notice was
issued to the 1st respondent. In Ext.P7 reply issued on behalf of
WPC No. 9075/09
:2 :
the 1st respondent, it was informed that the date of birth was
mentioned in the marks statement and passing certificate, based
on the school records and that the correction has to be made
firstly in the school records. It is also stated that in terms of Rule
69.2 of the CBSE Examination Byelaws, correction is permissible
only within two yeas from the date of publication of results. It is
challenging Ext.P7 and seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to
correct the date of birth of the petitioner, the writ petition has
been filed.
4. As far as the statement in Ext.P7 that school records
should be got corrected first is concerned, that stand of the 1st
respondent is incorrect, which is evident from Ext.P5 letter issued
by the 3rd respondent itself. In that letter, the 3rd respondent has
confessed that though in the school records, the date of birth of
the petitioner has been recorded as 19/1/90, in the list of
candidates sent from their office, date of birth of the petitioner
was wrongly mentioned as 18/1/90. Therefore, there is nothing to
be corrected in the school records.
5. As far as the impact of Rule 69.2 of the CBSE
Examination Byelaws is concerned, in several judgments, this
WPC No. 9075/09
:3 :
Court has taken the view that irrespective of the time limit
prescribed in the said rule, any application received by the CBSE
is liable to be considered on merits and orders are liable to be
passed on that basis. Therefore, the fact that application has
been made beyond the two years can be no reason for rejecting
the application of the threshold itself. Therefore, both reasons
stated in Ext.P7 reply are unsustainable.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that on
receipt of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent will reconsider
the application made by the petitioner’s father seeking correction
of her daughter’s date of birth in the mark statement and passing
certificate in the light of the documents produced by the
petitioner. On the other hand, if the application made by the
petitioner has already been returned to the 3rd respondent, it is
directed that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 3rd
respondent shall forward the application to the 1st respondent,
who shall pass fresh orders in the matter in the light of the above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp