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 R.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 Marlvanios College, Thiruvananthapuram. He passed 10th standard under the Central Board of Secondary Education in April, 2005 from the third respondent’s school and Ex.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 R.69.2(iv) of the bye-laws cannot adversely affect the petitioners 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:

“After having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should be considered afresh by the C.B.S.E, itself. Therefore, without proceeding further as regards the question of law involved in these cases as to whether the Examination Bye-laws of the C.B.S.E. is directly or mandatory in nature, we feel that in the interest of the poor students who are placed in the unfortunate situations referred to above, the C.B.S.E. should consider their cases sympathetically, as has been done in the case of students referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above. After all, the correction is not for any undue or unmerited advantage like extension in service; but only for reconciling the date of birth as appearing in the Register of Registrar of Births and Deaths. In the above circumstances, we consider the case of the students referred to in these cases sympathetically, leaving open the question of law and consider whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the situations referred to in each case, correction in the date of birth can be permitted.”

The Division Bench also noted in para 2 of the judgment, an affidavit filed by the

C.B.S.E. on 4.8.2009 stating that pursuant to the direction of this Court the C.B.S.E had constituted a committee and the committee has decided to take appropriate action for correction of the date of birth. The details of one communication addressed by C.B.S.E. to the Regional Officer, Chennai, has also been re-stated in para 2 itself.

4. In the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 14854/2009 this Court disposed of a similar matter in the light of the communication of the C.B.S.E. referred to by the Division Bench. In fact, in the said Communication, it was stated that the date of birth in the cer