IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 45880 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:

MINSHA FATHIMA AGED 16 YEARS D/O DR. HYDARALI.P, PARAMMAL HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678 583, THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND – FATHER DR. HYDARALI.P, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O HYDRESS P, PARAMMAL HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678583 BY ADVS.

SARITHA THOMAS SAHL ABDUL KADER RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS (HEAD OFFICE), SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110092

2 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR CBSE, REGIONAL OFFICE, B.S.N.L. RTTC CAMPUS, CTTC ADMIN BLOCK, KANYAKUMARI-KOCHI-PANVEL NH-66, KARIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695040

3 THE PRINCIPAL PARAKKOTTIL ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321 SRI. NIRMAL S., SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a student of the 10^th standard in the 3^rd respondent school. She is represented in these proceedings by her father. She is about to sit for the 10^th standard final examination. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the fact that when the details of the petitioner were forwarded to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by the 3^rd respondent, the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered as 19-12-

2008 instead of 09-12-2008.

2. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the CBSE would refer to the counter affidavit filed in this case and would submit that presently the examination process is ongoing and any direction at this point of time to correct the details of the petitioner would not be conducive to the conduct of the examination as there may be several other cases where similar issues have arisen. It is submitted that the rejection letter itself shows that petitioner's opportunity to correct the date of birth is not foreclosed for ever and she may apply at a proper time after the results are declared. It is submitted that the matter will be considered in terms of the guidelines issued by the CBSE in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Education; (2021) 7 SCC 535, if such application is made by the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if there is delay in considering the application for correction of date of birth, the petitioner will be put to serious prejudice and therefore the respondents may be directed to process the application for correction of date of birth immediately after the examinations are over.

4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the CBSE would submit that since the CBSE is flooded with application for correction of date of birth and other details before declaration of results, the same may also not be conducive to timely publication of results etc.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the CBSE, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to consider the application for correction of date of birth filed by the petitioner immediately after the examination process for the 10^th standard for the year 2025 is completed. I am inclined to direct as above on account of the fact that immediately on noticing the mistake the petitioner has approached the authorities with an application for correction of her date of birth. In order to allay the apprehension of the learned counsel for CBSE that this may result in a flood of application before results are announced, I make it clear that this direction is issued taking note of the peculiar facts of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent for all other cases where similar application for correction of date of birth is being filed. In order to enable reconsideration of