ARUN Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter concerns the request for correction of date of birth of the petitioner in the school records. By Ext.P5 communication it was informed by the Central Board of Secondary Education that in the light of Rule 69.2(iv) of the Examination Bye-laws the request cannot be entertained, as it is not within two years of the date of declaration of results of Class X Examination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same is not correct in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1948/2008 and connected cases and that of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 14854/2009.

(2.) The petitioner is now studying for the final year B.A. Degree course in Mar Ivanios College, Thiruvananthapuram. He passed 10th standard under the Central Board of Secondary Education in April, 2005 from the third respondent's school and Ext.P1 is the true copy of the mark list. The petitioner was born 26.4.1989. In support of the same, true copy of the birth certificate issued by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram is produced as Ext.P2. But, in the school records, his date of birth has been wrongly entered the date of birth in the school records. The petitioner applied for a passport and the passport authorities refused to issue passport to him stating that the date of birth shown in Exts.P1 and P2 are different. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation before the third respondent. Ext.P4 is the copy of an affidavit of his father duly attested by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyatinkara, stating that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 26.4.1989.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that what is entered in the certificate of births and deaths issued by the local authority is relevant, going by the decisions of this Court also. It is further pointed out that the bar under Rule 69.2(iv) of the bye-laws cannot adversely affect the petitioner as it cannot be taken as a period of limitation at all. In W.A. No. 1948/2008 and connected cases, the Division Bench quoted the interim order passed in the said case on 1.4.2009, the relevant portion of which is as follows: