IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 1093 of 2011(J)

1. NANDAGOPAL.S., MGN-20C, M.G.NAGAR, ... Petitioner

Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ... Respondent

2. COUNCIL FOR STHE INDIAN SCHOOL

3. THE SECRETARY, COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN

4. THE PRINCIPAL, CHRIST NAGAR HIGHER

5. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :14/11/2011

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1093 OF 2011(J)

-------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T

According to the petitioner he was the student of the Christ Nagar Higher Secondary School, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram, affiliated to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that in the school records his date of birth was entered as 5.3.1991 instead of 5.3.1990. Seeking correction of the aforesaid mistake, he made an application which was eventually rejected by Ext.P5 order. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition is filed.

2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and the standing counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. The main reason stated in Ext.P5 order of rejection is that the application for correction ought to have been made within one year of passing ICSE examination and that the application is belated.

3. In several cases of this nature, this court has held that, in spite of the rules of the 2nd respondent, even if an application for correction of date of birth is received belatedly, such application is liable to be considered on merits. Since the rejection  WPC.No.1093 /2011

:2 :

of the petitioner's request as per Ext.P5 is contrary to the judgments of this court, Ext.P5 is liable to be quashed and I do so.

4. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the light of the documents produced, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC)

JUDGE

vi/