1 / 3 2025:CGHC:554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6496 of 2024 1 - Nilesh Kumar Kesherwani S/o Late Jeetram Kesherwani Aged About 46 Years R/o Magarpara, Chowk, Marimai Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Assistant Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Principal, Balmukund School, Talapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 01/10/2024 passed by the respondent No.2. Vide the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet of Class AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.07 17:36:07 +0530 2 / 3 10th of the petitioner, which was filed on 03/06/2024. The rejection has been made on the ground of delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the mark-sheet of Class 10th as 16/07/1978, whereas the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 16/07/1979. He submits that an application for correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet of Class 10th was given in the prescribed format with the corrected mark-sheets of Class 5th and Class 8th to the respondents, which was rejected on 01/10/2024 by the respondent No.2/Board. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the respondent No.2/Board submit that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the respondents authorities for correction of his date of birth in the mark-sheet of Class 10th. It is further submitted that the application moved by the petitioner was after a period of more that 20 years from the date of issuance of the mark-sheet/certificate and as per the provisions/guidelines of the Board, the application can only be entertained within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the mark-sheet/certificate, hence, the application has rightly been rejected by the Board. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order dated 01/10/2024 (Annexure P-1). 5. In the instant case also, the bare perusal of the pleadings itself would show that the petitioner had cleared high school examination in the year 1997 and the request for correction of the 3 / 3 date of birth seems to have been made only in the month of June, 2024 i.e. almost after a period of more than 20 years from the date of issuance of the mark-sheet/certificate. Moreover, during the said period, the petitioner had multiple occasions for verifying the date of birth that was entered in the mark-sheet of his high school, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the date of birth in the school records, particularly the high school certificate. 6. The respondents/Board has a provisions/guidelines which provides for a mechanism for correction of date of birth and the guidelines also provide for a period within which the date of birth cant be sought to be corrected. The guidelines speak of three years time within which a person can approach the authorities for correction of date of birth. The petitioner has approached the respondent No.2/Board after a period of more than 20 years with practically no explanation whatsoever as to why he did not move an application earlier or what prevented him from moving an appropriate application earlier. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 01/10/2024 passed by the respondent No.2/Board cannot be termed to be bad in law or arbitrary in any manner. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep