JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment made in W.P.(C)

No.26270 of 2019 dated 03.10.2019, by which the writ court issued the following directions:-

“2. In the light of the various judgments of this Court, the following directions are issued:

i. The school authority, based on the birth certificate issued by the local authority and on being satisfied with the genuineness of such certificate shall cause correction in the school records within one month and forward the school records to the CBSE without any delay.

ii. Thereafter, the CBSE shall act upon such records and cause correction of the CBSE certificate within a further period of two months.

iii. Needless to say, the school authority and the CBSE shall correct the date of birth, only on being satisfied with the genuineness of birth certificate produced by the petitioner. iv. It is to be noted that the petitioner passed the above examination in the year 2006. The long delay, no doubt, cannot be ignored. However, it need not deny her claim for correction of date of birth. Considering the delay involved in the matter, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees ten thousand only) to the CBSE.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.”

2. Being aggrieved by the above, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and CBSE represented by its Regional Officer, Regional Office, Chennai, have preferred this appeal.

3. Shorts facts leading to the appeal are as under:

“Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the appellants to correct date of birth in the first respondent's CBSE Certificates without considering the CBSE Bye-laws. The correction of date of birth, name of candidate, father's name, mother's name etc., are governed by the examination bye-laws of CBSE. The correction in date of birth is governed by Bye-law 69.2 as far as certificates issued prior to 2005 are concerned and by bye-law 69.3, birth certificate 2015 class IX/XII examinations onwards. As per the examination byelaw 69.2 and 69.3, the corrections that could be carried out are only to correct typographical and other errors, to make the certificates consistent with the school records. The appellants contended that the 1st respondent has, along with the writ petition, produced a birth certificate, issued on 1.1.2020 much after the date when the petitioner had passed her tenth Board Exam. The correction sought by the petitioner does not fit in the category of typographical error as there is considerable change in the date of birth. According to the appellants, the inordinate delay in approaching the Board is also not explained by the petitioner in the writ petition.”

4. Assailing the correctness of the judgment made in W.P.(C) No.26270 of 2019 dated 03.10.2019, appellants have raised the following grounds:

“1. As per the examination bye-laws 69.2 and 69.3, the corrections that could be carried out are only to correct typographical and other errors, to make the certificates consistent with the school records. As per Clause 69.2, no change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made.

2. The correction sought by the petitioner does not fit in the category of typographical error as there is considerable change in date of birth. The inordinate delay in approaching the board is also not explained by the petitioner in the writ petition.

3. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Subin Mohammed Vs. Union of India and others (2016 (1) KLT 340), has clearly directed that, the board ought to correct the certificates only if the request is found to be genuine.

4. The learned single Judge was unmindful of the fact that a reasonable prescription of a statutory body cannot be substituted by courts with a more reasonable one which would result in individual predilections being imposed on statutory authorities as against the prescribed rules and regulations.

5. The examination bye-law pe