1 2025:CGHC:28864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3273 of 2025 1 - Jagriti W/o Shri Ubhay Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bhanvarmara, Balod, Bhanvarmara, Police Station And Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Open School, Raipur, Vivekanand Nagar, Janta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 30/06/2025 1. The default(s) raised by the Registry is hereby overruled. 2. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following relief(s): 10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this 2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to rectify the mistake in her marksheet and issue a fresh marksheet. 10.2 Any other relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is working as Anganbadi Sahayika since the date of posting i.e., 27.09.2012, that the Project Officer, Daundilohara, District- Balod (C.G.) issued memo dated 11.04.2025 and invited application for Anganbadi Karyakarta and Sahiyika for Village Panchayat, Block Daundilohara. The petitioner also applied for the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta and it came to the knowledge that there is mistake of date of birth in Class 10th marksheet issued by the respondent/ C.G. Board of Open School, Raipur in the examination conducted in the year 2015. In all the documents of the petitioner, i.e., Dakhil-Kharij, Marksheets, adhar and voter Id the date of birth is mentioned as 25.01.1992 but only in Class 10th marksheet the date of birth is mentioned as 25.01.1998 instead of 25.01.1992 because of the fault of the respondent authority thought he petitioner had submitted the documents at the time for submitting the application for Class 10th before the respondent but the respondent had wrongly endorsed the date of birth as 25.01.1998 instead of 25.01.1992. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very act of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary because the respondent had wrongly endorsed the date of birth though the petitioner had submitted the 3 documents at the time of submitting the application for Class 10th before the respondent but the respondent had wrongly endorsed the date of birth as 25.01.1998 instead of 25.01.1992. This came to the knowledge of petitioner at the time of filling the form for the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition submits that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the respondent authorities for correction of her date of birth. It is the further contention of the respondent that no plausible explanation has been provided by the petitioner which prevented her from approaching the authorities for correction of her date of birth earlier. The counsel for the respondent further contended that under the bylaws and the instructions issued by the respondent, it is not that there is no remedy available tot he petitioner, however, at the appropriate time the remedy was not availed by the petitioner and therefore at this belated stage the same cannot be permitted to be entertained or else there can be floodgate of such request from all corners. 7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, if the contention fo the petitioner is to be believed, in 2015 she had cleared high school examination as would be evident from Annexure P/3. The petitioner is presently working as Anganbadi Sahayika, in village Daundilohara since the date of appointment on 27.09.2012 which is evident from Annexure P/1. While filling the form for Anganbadi Sahayika, the petitioner must have filled her date of birth stating it to be 25.01.1992. If the petitioner was aware of the fact that date of birth 4 reflected in the marksheet issued in 2001 was incorrect, she could have easily approached the authorities at that point of time itself for correction of date of birth. 8. As pointed out by the counsel for respondent, under the bylaws and the instructions issued by the respondent the correction of date of birth is permissible only in case if application is moved within a period of three years from the date of receipt of certificate. No plausible explanation has been furnished by the petitioner which could be accepted for the delay that has arisen in not filling application within time. Moreover, 10 years time is a very long time for moving appropriate application for correction of her date of birth in the high school certificate. 9. Once when admittedly the application has not been preferred within a period of three years time which is permissible, the application now made after more than a decade cannot be and should not be entertained for correction of her date of birth when the petitioner knowingly for the last 10 years did not take any efforts for getting the same corrected. 10.The writ petition accordingly is not sustainable. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail other remedies open to her ventilating her grievances, if permissible under the rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima