1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2278 of 2022 Judgment Reserved on 25.03.2025 Judgment Delivered on 08.05.2025 1 - Kumari Poonam D/o Shri Dharam Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Gajra Basti, Post Office Bankimongra, Tehsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Secretary, Pension Bada, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Pension Bada, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Principal Govt. (Twd) Higher Secondary School, Ghurdewa, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 6 - The Clerk Govt. (Twd) Higher Secondary School, Ghurdewa, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate For State :- Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 & 3:- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for correction of Date of Birth mentioned in the grade-sheet cum certificate for performance of Class 10th of the petitioner, which is wrongly recorded as 01.02.2001, whereas, the correct Date of Birth is 01.02.2002. The petitioner has filed an application for correction of the same, however, it has not been corrected and vide impugned order dated 27.07.2021 issued by the respondent No. 3, the application for correction of Date of Birth has been rejected stating that after due consideration of the application, it is dismissed. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records/documents in relation to the case of 3 the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate order(s)/writ(s)/direction(s) to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1) and thereby direct the Respondent No. 2 and No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner and issue the correct Mark Sheet cum Certificate of Performance of Class 10th (Session 2016-17) with the correct date of birth as 01.02.2002. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other relief(s) in favour of the petitioner, as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. The case as projected by the petitioner is that the actual Date of Birth of the petitioner is 01.02.2002, which is mentioned in the School Transfer Certificate dated 30.06.2012, according to which the petitioner has been admitted in the Aadim Jati Kalyan Vibhag Prathmik Shala, Gajra, District Korba in the year 2007 wherein the petitioner has studied till class 5th. On the basis of Transfer Certificate issued by the said School, the petitioner got admitted in the Pronnat Maadhyamik Shala, Bankiside, Katghora in the year 2012 where she has studied upto Class 8th and another Transfer Certificate was issued by the said school, 4 wherein her Date of Birth has been mentioned as 01.02.2002. The petitioner, after successfully passing of class 8th examination, received Transfer Certificate and got admitted in class 9th in the Government (TWD) Higher Secondary School, Ghurdewa, Dsitrict Korba in the year 2015. In the said school, due to clerical error, the Date of Birth of the petitioner has been incorrectly mentioned as 01.02.2001 which could not be looked by the petitioner and, as such, the Date of Birth has been wrongly mentioned in the mark-sheet of the petitioner. When the mark-sheet and grade-sheet etc. has been received by the petitioner, this fact came into her knowledge for the first time after publication of the result in the year 2020. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner immediately moved an application on 04.11.2020 i.e. within 3 years from the date of issuance of certificate with a request that the same may be corrected on the basis of other documents in which the Date of Birth has been correctly mentioned as 01.02.2002. 4. The respondent No. 2, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the relevant documents in this matter, has illegally dismissed the application even without assigning any reason. Therefore, the order impugned is not a speaking order as it does not reflects that upon what grounds the application of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner through her father has rightly made 5 application within an outer limit of three years and, as such, the respondents are required to pass orders while correcting the Date of Birth of the petitioner. From perusal of the Date of Birth mentioned in the certificates, it seems that due to typographical mistake, the year has been wrongly mentioned as 2001 whereas it should be 2002. Since the impugned order is per se illegal, hence the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court seeking a direction to the concerned authority i.e. respondent No. 2 to correct the Date of Birth of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the order, it seems that the authorities have not considered the vital aspect of the matter that in the certificate of class 5 th & class 8th, the date of birth has been correctly stated to be 01.02.2002, however, it has wrongly been mentioned in the subsequent admission register as well as in the mark-sheet of the class 10th examination. He submits that in the present case, the reference of the circular dated 04.09.2021 has wrongly been applied as the said circular can be prospective and cannot have retrospective effect. He submits that the case of the petitioner pertains to the year 2017, as such, prima facie the petitioner is having a good case and if her Date of Birth would not be corrected, her entire career would be in stake and, as such, it needs to be corrected. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters 6 of Jigya Yadav vs. CBSE reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535 , Manoj Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702 and also in the matter of Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. MIDC reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 and submits that the present petition may also be allowed in terms of the aforesaid rendered judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the Date of Birth of the petitioner can only be corrected if the application is filed within three years as per the circular dated 04.09.2021 which has not been made in the present case. The grade class 10th grade cum certificate of performance pertaining to year 2016-17 of the petitioner has been issued by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education in the month of March 2017, however, the application for correction of the same has been submitted on 04.11.2020, which is beyond the prescribed limit of 3 years of limitation. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently upheld that the application cannot be filed beyond prescribed limitation, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the reliefs as sought by the petitioner is only against the respondents No. 2 & 7 3/Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, therefore, no cause of action arises against the respondent-State. He submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the present petition has been filed after a delay of about 5 years from the date of issuance of mark-sheet of class 10th of the petitioner. He further relies on the judgment passed passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Board of Education, Asam vs. Md. Sarifuz Zaman reported in (2003) 12 SCC 408 as also the judgment passed by this Court in WPC No. 2886/2017 dated 07.07.2017 in the matter of Dr. Krishna Kumar Kawre vs. State of Chhattisgarh and submits that the correction in date of birth can be only done when the application for the said fact is preferred within the stipulated time frame i.e. three years of limitation and it cannot be made after the prescribed limitation. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions put forth and perused the material available on record carefully. 9. The Supreme Court in an identical case in the matter of Manoj Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702, has held as under:- “8. There is no doubt that if any candidate furnishes false or incomplete information or withholds or conceals any material information in his application, he will be 8 debarred from securing employment. It is also true that even if such an applicant is already appointed, his services are liable to be terminated for furnishing false information. 9. But the question here is whether the appellant had given false information or suppressed any relevant or material information. The records of MAGSS School, Jind, Haryana where he studied in the sixth standard shows his date of birth as 8.9.1988. Therefore that date was not something that was created for the purpose of securing employment. Further, the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana, to appellant's sister shows her date of birth as 23.11.1989. Obviously therefore the appellant's date of birth shown as 8.11.1989 in his matriculation certificate, was erroneous. He was pursuing his request for correction of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate and also filed a suit for correction of his date of birth. The Civil Court decreed the suit and the Board of School Education accepted the decision and corrected the date of birth. If all the facts and circumstances are taken note of, it is evident that appellant's date of birth was 8.9.1988 and not 8.11.1989. The appellant was all along making efforts to get the date of birth corrected and in fact, got it corrected. This is not a case where a wrong date was given to have a longer period of service and thereafter 9 an attempt to justify it. There was obviously a mistake in the date of birth and the Haryana School Education Board corrected it. The explanation offered by the appellant with supporting documents, was not considered either by respondents 3 and 4, or by the Tribunal and the High Court. They ignored the relevant material and decided against the appellant only because the matriculation certificate as it stood at the time of the employment application was different from the date given in the application for employment. While the matriculation certificate is a strong material, other equally relevant material cannot be ignored, particularly when the matriculate certificate has been corrected. The case of an entrant seeking correction of date of birth should not be equated with cases of government servants at the tail end of their service trying to get extension of service by alleging wrong date of birth. We should also not lose sight of the fact that many service Rules provide for change of date of birth in the Service Register, on production of satisfactory proof, provided that the change is sought within the first few years of entering service. Be that as it may. 10. We are therefore of the view that the termination cannot be sustained. The appeal is therefore allowed, the order of the High Court, the orders of the CAT and the order of 10 termination are set aside. As a consequence the appellant shall be taken back into service within two months, with continuity of service and permitted to complete his training. The appellant will not be entitled to any backwages.” 10. Further, in the matter of Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. MIDC reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “12. The State, especially a welfare State which is governed by the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the 11 same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience. 13. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 , nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the party’s defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. 14. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is 12 legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have infact emerged, by delay on the part of the petitioners.” 11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jigya Yadav vs. CBSE reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535 has dealt with identical issue vide paras 137, 146, 150 & 172 which are quoted hereinbelow:- “137. No doubt, it is true that CBSE certificates are not strictly meant to be considered as identity documents, however, the same are being relied upon for corroborative purposes in all academic and career related transactions as foundational document. In fact, the CBSE itself has conceded to this fact that their certificates are relied for all official purposes, as noted above. The date of birth in matriculation certificate, in particular, is relied upon as primary evidence 13 of date of birth of a citizen. Therefore, as regards the information contained in a CBSE certificate, the Board must afford opportunity to the students to modify it subject to complying with requisite formalities which are reasonable in nature. If all other State agencies could allow it for the preservance of consistency and accuracy, alongside being enablers in free exercise of rights by the citizens, there is no reason for the CBSE to not uphold that right of the students. More so, it would be in the interest of CBSE’s own credibility that their records are regarded as accurate and latest records of a student worthy of being relied upon for official purposes. Therefore, this approach would serve twin purposes – enabling free exercise of rights and preservance of accuracy. 146. Similar provision is available for “correction” in date of birth, either on the basis of school records or on the basis of order of court. The word “change” is not used for date of birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of birth and there can only be a correction to make it consistent with school record or order of Court. It cannot be changed to replace the former with a fresh date of one’s choice. Be it noted, provisions relating to correction in date of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections. The restriction 14 regarding limitation period shall be examined later, along with other provisions. 150. Indisputably, the candidate would pursue further education and explore future career opportunities on the basis of school records including the CBSE Board. The CBSE maintains its official records in respect of candidate on the basis of foundational documents being the school records. Therefore, the CBSE is obliged to carry out all necessary corrections to ensure that CBSE certificate is consistent with the relevant information furnished in the school records as it existed at the relevant time and future changes thereto including after the publication of results by the CBSE. However, when it comes to recording any information in the original certificate issued by the CBSE which is not consistent with the school records, it is essential that the CBSE must insist for supporting public document which has presumptive value and in the given case declaration by a Court of law to incorporate such a change. In that regard, the CBSE can insist for additional conditions to reassure itself and safeguard its interest against any claim by a third party/body because of changes incorporated by it pursuant to application made by the candidate. In the concluding paragraph, we intend to issue directions to the CBSE Board in light of the discussion in this judgment. For the nature of 15 uniform directions that we propose to issue so as to obviate any inconsistent approach in the cases under consideration including future cases to be dealt with by the CBSE Board, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the question of validity of the respective amendments in the relevant Byelaws effected from time to time. 172. In light of the above, in exercise of our plenary jurisdiction, we direct the CBSE to process the applications for correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificate issued by it in the respective cases under consideration. Even other pending applications and future applications for such request be processed on the same lines and in particular the conclusion and directions recorded hitherto in paragraphs 170 and 171, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws. Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it.” 12. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Prema Evelyn Dcruz vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4095, has held as under :- 16 “36. The evidentiary value of date of birth appearing in the mark sheet of a candidate is not disputed. In fact, even before the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 coming into force, the primary document relied upon for the purpose of understanding the date of birth of a candidate is the school records. It is either the extract of school admission register maintained by the school or the school leaving certificate/transfer certificate which are relied upon as proof of age. But in the instant case, this Court is not concerned with the correctness of the actual date of birth of the candidate. There are several examples available where while admitting the candidate to the school, the parents or guardian, as the case may be, had given a particular date of birth whereas in the register maintained by the statutory authority, the date of birth is different. This can arise under different circumstances. One may be a deliberate act, as the parents or guardian with full knowledge of the actual date of birth gives a different date of birth in the school for some advantage at the relevant time. Fraud may be practised, or it can also be an instance of mistake or on account of negligence or carelessness. But it is relevant to note that when a student studies in a school up to 10th standard or 10+2, the parents or guardian and even the student gets the opportunity to verify the 17 entry of date of birth in the school records. It is possible that the child was not be aware of the actual date of birth in the register maintained by the competent authority during the relevant time or might not have noticed the said fact at the relevant time. Therefore, it is apparent that two different dates of birth are available for a particular candidate, one in the register maintained by the school and second in the register maintained by the statutory authority. For all practical purposes, there could only be one date of birth for a person and either of it would be the correct date of birth. But I am not concerned with issue regarding the correctness of the date of birth and no such enquiry is being conducted by the CBSE. The only factor to be looked into is whether this Court can issue a mandamus to the CBSE to effect the correction de hors the restrictions imposed by them in their bye- laws. 37. Relying upon the birth certificate issued by the Corporation, the petitioner has successfully updated her Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, PAN Card and Passport to record her date of birth as 27th February, 1981. 38. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of clerical or typographical error, in comparison with the school records. It appears to be a 18 genuine mistake as the date of birth is entered as 27th February, 1983 instead of 27th February, 1981. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the forms of the examination were filled up by the agent of the petitioner, therefore, he might have filled up the wrong date of birth of the petitioner. In other words, a situation as envisaged for reconciling the school records with the birth certificate from statutory authority, was not contemplated by the CBSE in their bye laws. 39. Therefore, I have to proceed on the basis that the bye-laws of the CBSE cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. However, to reconcile the date of birth entry in the mark sheet with that of the entry in the statutory certificate, the candidates should not be left without any remedy. Their right to approach the Court for redressing their grievance thus cannot be ruled out. 40. The next question is whether the Writ Court should exercise the power to direct correction of the entries in the mark sheet taking into account the entry in the birth certificate maintained by the statutory authority. It is a well settled principle of law that writ of mandamus can be issued only if an aggrieved party has an enforceable legal right under a statute or rule. The writ of mandamus can only be issued to an authority to do something when the petitioner 19 has established a legal right vested in him and a corresponding legal duty vested in the State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd.,, [(2013) 5.SCC 470] has held under: "The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justitiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal." 41. The same ratio has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Food Corpn. of India v. Ashis Kumar Ganguly, (2009) 7 SCC 734 and State of 20 M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456. 42. Hence, the discretion must be exercised by the court on grounds of public policy, public interest and public good. The writ is equitable in nature and thus, its issuance is governed by equitable principles. Refusal of relief must be for reasons which would lead to injustice. The prime consideration for the issuance of the said writ is, whether or not substantial justice will be promoted. Furthermore, while granting such a writ, the Court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, whether there exist proper pleadings. In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against which mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant with respect to the enforcement of his legal right. However, a demand may not be necessary when the same is manifest 21 from the facts of the case, that is, when it is an empty formality, or when it is obvious that the opposite party would not consider the demand. 43. In Sarifuz Zaman (supra), the request was made to correct the date of birth in the marksheet, on the basis that at the time of admission a clerical error occurred in making an entry in the school records. Hence, this judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the present case, where the petitioner admits that his agent has given a wrong date of birth in the form of 10th Board Examination and seeks to reconcile it with the birth certificate. Therefore, the ruling in Sarifuz Zaman (supra) is not applicable to the present case. 44. It is also contended that the future prospects of the petitioner will also be affected if the entry of date of birth in the mark sheet does not tally with that in the birth certificate issued by the statutory authority. In other documents like Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, PAN Card and Passport, the date of birth has already been updated as 27th February, 1981. I am of the view that, failure to exercise jurisdiction may put the petitioner to serious hardship. Hence, to render justice, it is always open for the Court to pass appropriate orders, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. However, if disputed questions of fact 22 arise, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the matter. In the present case, there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching CBSE, which has been properly explained. It is also noted that other authorities have already updated the date of birth in their documents relying upon the birth certificate issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation. Therefore, failure to exercise jurisdiction will result in injustice to the petitioner. Such writ petition can therefore be entertained.” 13. Reverting back to the present case, from perusal of the record, it appears that though the result was published in the year 2017, however, due to Covid19 pandemic period, the application was filed on 04.11.2020 with only 3 months delay. The bonafide of the petitioner/applicant can be seen from the filing date of the application as there was an international lock- down prevailing due to Covid-19 pandemic in that period, as such, the application of the petitioner could not be filed and it was filed with a delay of about three months. The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the respondent- Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education and her application for correction of Date of Birth was not considered. 14. In my considered opinion, the discrepancy between the date of birth mentioned in the petitioner’s mark-sheet and that 23 reflected in the birth certificate issued by the statutory authority is a matter of serious concern, as it may adversely affect the petitioner’s future prospects, including employment and educational opportunities. While it is true that the petitioner approached the Board after a lapse of time, the explanation offered appears to be reasonable and satisfactory. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the delay alone should not be a ground to reject the petitioner’s claim outright. The Hon’ble Courts have consistently held that when failure to exercise jurisdiction results in hardship or injustice, it is open to the Court to intervene and issue appropriate directions, especially when the facts are not seriously disputed and the matter can be resolved without entering into complex factual controversies. The authorities concerned ought to consider the petitioner’s request for correction of the date of birth in accordance with law and in the interest of justice, without being unduly influenced by the delay. 15. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, submissions advanced by the parties and further considering the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Manoj Kumar (Supra), Tukaram Kana Joshi (Supra), and Jigya Yadav (Supra), it is directed that the petitioner shall file a fresh application to the respondent No. 2 for correction of Date of Birth in her certificate, wherein the year has wrongly 24 been mentioned as 2001 instead of 2002, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The concerned competent respondent authority, especially the respondent No. 2- Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, in turn, is directed to consider the application of the petitioner regarding correction of Date of Birth, after due verification of the relevant documents of the petitioner, and if found liable to be correct, then her Date of Birth shall be rectified in her class 10th mark-sheet by issuing a fresh mark-sheet with correct Date of Birth. The said exercise be done within a period of further 60 days from the date of receipt of the said application. 16. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha