Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37600 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4883 of 2025 Petitioner :- Garvit Raj Srivastava Thru. Natural Guardian/Father, Shri Manish Raj Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy., Minisrty Education, New Delhi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Saxena,Paras Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Harsha Yadav Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Amitesh Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Harsha Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.1; learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.3; Shri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri Padmesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent no.5. None has appeared for respondent no.2 despite service of notice as evidenced from the affidavit of service filed today which is taken on record. 3. Neat contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite moving an application for rectification of date of birth in the transfer certificate issued by respondent no.4, no steps are being taken for which, present petition has been filed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of taking admission, there was an error in filling the month while filling the date of birth column; the same mistake occurred in the Aadhar Card also, however, subsequently, a birth certificate was issued by the authority empowered to issue birth certificate and based upon the said birth certificate, an application was moved for correction in the transfer certificate issued by respondent no.4, however, the same has not been done. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 argues that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors.; (2023) 4 SCC 498, a writ petition would not lie against respondent no.4 which is a private institution. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Full Bench judgment in the case of Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ - A No.63708 of 2014 decided on 26.02.2019 wherein the Full Bench while answering the question "whether private institutions imparting education perform public duty, a State function, making them amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India", has held in Para 64 as under: "64. Question (i): Private Institutions imparting education to students from the age of six years onwards, including higher education, perform public duty primarily a State function, therefore are amenable to judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 7. In the light of the said, the objection of learned counsel for respondent no.4 is rejected, more so, in view of the mandate of Art. 21A of the Constitution wherein the right to education is a fundamental right. 8. Considering the fact that the only document authorized to depict the date of birth is the date of birth certificate issued by the competent authority, respondent no.4 is directed to correct the transfer certificate within a period of three days from today. 9. In case the transfer certificate is not corrected within three days from today, the Principle of respondent no.4/School would be liable to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be recoverable from his salary. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench