Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010180962023 2025:GAU-AS:9514 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4766/2023 INDRAJIT DHAR S/O- UPEN KR. DHAR, RESIDENT OF - NETAJI NAGAR, WARD NO. 9, HOUSE NO. 115, P.O. BONGAIGAON, P.S. DHUPDHARA, DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783101, PRESENT ADDRESS- HOUSE NO.9, BYE-LANE-3, BIRUBARI, UDAYPUR, P.O. AND P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781008 VERSUS THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND 4 ORS ASSAM, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI- 781021, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN 2:THE CONTROLLER OF BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021 3:THE SECRETARY OF BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021 4:THE SECRETARY OF EXAMINATION OF BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021 5:THE PRINCIPAL BONGAIGAON RAILWAY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL BONGAIGAON Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, MR. S K DAS Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEBA, MS R SAHA (r-5),MR. B J MUKHERJEE (r-5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 24.07.2025 Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State School Education Board (ASSEB) and Mr. B. J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. The first writ petition being WP(C) No. 9132/2019 was disposed of vide Order dated 04.03.2021 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh with liberty to the petitioner to produce the original application and the reminder filed by him for change of his date of birth. The respondent authorities were directed to take a decision within a time frame. Subsequent thereto, the respondent authority concerned has passed the Order dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure L) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for change of his date of birth. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his Matriculation Certificate was issued with a incorrect date of birth showing the same as 25.02.1966 and that his actual date of birth is 25.02.1970. The petitioner, noticing the incorrect date of birth in his certificate submitted an application to the Secretary, Secondary Education Board Assam on 24.06.1986 and thereafter on 04.02.1987 seeking the change in his date of birth as 25.02.1970 instead of 25.02.1966. Despite the Page No.# 3/7 same the respondent authorities failed to look into the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner once again on 20.11.2019 submitted his representation for correction of his age before the Secretary, SEBA, but the same came to be rejected as time-barred. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had initiated his first writ petition. 4. The petitioner in support of his application for correction of his date of birth has relied upon the Certificate issued by the Ward Commissioner under the Bongaigaon Municipal Corporation on 18.04.1983, the Certificate issued by Dr. S. M. Bhowmick, under whose treatment the petitioner was said to have been born and also the medical prescription given by the said doctor. As already stated, since the application of the petitioner was not entertained due to time bar, he had initiated the first writ petition and this Court considering the projection made up by the petitioner had remanded the matter back for reconsideration. However, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent authority concerned. 5. Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application of the petitioner was within time inasmuch as the same was submitted on 24.06.1986 before the Secretary, SEBA and also on 04.02.1987. The application was duly acknowledged by the person concerned with seal and signature and therefore the respondent authority ought to have acted upon the same. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in possession of the original documents relied upon by him and the same can be produced if so required by this Court. The learned counsel, further, submits that based on the documents submitted by the petitioner the Joint Director of Health Services, Bongaigaon has issued a birth certificate to the petitioner showing his date of Page No.# 4/7 birth as 25.02.1970. The same being issued by a competent authority, the date of birth of the petitioner accordingly be directed to be altered in terms of the said birth certificate. 6. Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, ASSEB, on the other hand submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish that the application for correction of his date of birth was filed by him within time. He submits that the respondent authority found that no such employees have been employed by SEBA at any point of time whom the petitioner claims to have received his representation. Further, medical certificate submitted by the petitioner does not indicate the registration number of the doctor concerned and therefore it cannot be the basis for accepting the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in his Matriculation Certificate. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was appointed on 23.04.2013 and going by his date of birth as per his Matriculation Certificate, the petitioner would be of 47 years 1 Month 28 days. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has now initiated the instant writ proceedings at the fag end of his service and therefore, the prayer for alteration of his date of birth at this stage should not be allowed. In this connection learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shri M. Kuber Singh Vs. State of Manipur reported in 2014 1 GLT 497 and case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in 2020 3 SCC 411. The learned counsel submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. 7. Mr. B. J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, also adopts the submissions made by Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, ASSEB. He Page No.# 5/7 further submits that when the matter was remanded back by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the respondent No. 5 was also summoned to produce the school admission register. In the process, the respondent No. 5 had produced the application submitted seeking the admission of the petitioner in Class- V, wherein his date of birth was declared as 25.02.1966. Likewise, in the school register it has also been shown that the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.02.1966 and he was given transfer certificate by Bongaigaon Railway L. P. School on 15.04.1976, wherein, his date of birth has been shown as 25.02.1966. The learned counsel, further submits that if the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.02.1970 as claimed by him he would be studying in Class – V at the age of 6 (six) years only which is not possible by any means. Therefore, no interference is called for in the date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. Although Ms. Choudhury, has submitted that the petitioner can produce the original documents which he wishes to rely upon but such liberty was already given to him for production before the authority concerned in the first round of litigation. As already stated, the petitioner had approached this Court initially through WP(C) No. 9132/2019 and this Court taking into account the applications submitted by the petitioner for change of his date of birth as well as the documents relied upon by him deemed it fit and proper to remand the matter back for afresh for consideration. Accordingly, 23.04.2021 was the date fixed for hearing the petitioner but the petitioner having failed to attend the hearing on the said date due to some personal inconvenience, the Board had fixed another date of hearing on 25.03.2022. The petitioner again remained absent on 25.03.2022 and therefore Page No.# 6/7 another date i.e., 20.05.2023 was fixed for hearing the petitioner. The petitioner attended the hearing but was unable to produce the money receipt supposed to be submitted along with his application dated 24.06.1986. In so far as the school admission register was concerned, the petitioner expressed his inability to produce the same. For that reason, another date was fixed by hearing i.e. on 13.06.2023 with a request to Principal, Bongaigaon Railway Higher Secondary School, Bongaigaon to produce the school admission register. The school admission register that was then produced which showed the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.02.1966. As maybe noticed, a copy of the same has been annexed by the respondent No. 5 in the counter affidavit as Annexure - 1 & Annexure - 2. 9. The respondent authority concerned in the impugned Order dated 10.07.2023 has also mentioned that the 2 (two) applications clamed to have been submitted by the petitioner on 24.06.1986 and 04.02.1987 has been examined. They were claimed to have been received by B. Baruah and B. Sarma respectively. It was found that both the said persons were never the employee of the Board as per the records maintained by the Board. Therefore, the applications were not received by the Office concerned. 10. Further, the petitioner has relied upon the certificate issued by the doctor who is said to have attended to the petitioner at the time of his birth. However, if the date of birth of the petitioner is indeed 25.02.1970, it is not understood as to why he had sought admission in the Bongaigaon Railway L. P. School by declaring his date of birth as 25.02.1966. The Matriculation Certificate issued to the petitioner is only in terms of the date of birth declared by him in the application for admission in Bongaigaon Railway High School. The respondent Page No.# 7/7 authorities concerned have duly considered the projection made by the petitioner and this Court has also examined the materials available on record and upon doing so, this Court is unable to accept to the prayer of the petitioner that his date of birth is 25.02.1970 and not 25.02.1966. It is a settled law that the correction of his date of birth should not be initiated at the fag end of one’s service and the petitioner admittedly has not taken necessary steps promptly on the basis of reliable and admissible documents. 11. Thus upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I do not find merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant