1 2025:CGHC:61790-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 940 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education Through The Secretary, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No 2 In Writ Petition) 2 - Deputy Secretary Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. (Respondent No. 3 In Writ Petition) ... Appellants versus 1 - Bhani Pujari D/o Shri Ram Krishna Pujari Aged About 52 Years R/o C/o- Renuka Rao Gandhi Nagar, Sukma District- Sukma, C.G. (Petitioner No 1 In Writ Petition) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. (Respondent No. 1 In Writ Petition) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.12 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.19 15:57:10 +0530 2 General, appearing for State/respondent No.2 on I.A. No.02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.02), the same is allowed. Delay of 18 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, the appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “In view of the facts and grounds the appellant most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ Appeal by quashing/setting aside the order dated 08.09.2025 passed in WPC/4078/2025 by Hon'ble Single bench (ANNEXURE A/1), in the interest of Justice.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4078/2025 (Bhani Pujari v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been disposed of. 5. Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, were that the writ petitioner sought issuance of appropriate directions to the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education for correction of her personal particulars recorded in the High School Examination Certificate-cum-Marksheet issued in 3 the year 2023. It was contended that due to an apparent clerical error, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 07.01.2001 instead of the correct date of birth 01.07.1973, and further, her name was incorrectly recorded as “Bhani Purjari” instead of “Bhani Pujari”. 6. The writ petitioner, therefore, prayed for necessary correction of the said entries in the relevant records and certificate by filing a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.4078/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.09.2025. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.4078/2025, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants.. 8. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from patent errors of law and jurisdiction, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant–Board to ignore the delay and consider the writ petitioner’s application, despite the express statutory bar contained in the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965 and the resolutions framed thereunder. Such a direction, it is contended, virtually nullifies the statutory scheme and compels the Board to act in a manner contrary to law. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the limitation period prescribed 4 under the Board’s Resolution dated 28.02.2022, which provides a clear and mandatory time frame of three years for seeking correction in name, surname, or date of birth, is binding in nature. Once the said period expires, the Board is completely divested of jurisdiction to entertain any such application. 9. Mr. Tiwari would urge that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to rewriting, relaxing, or amending statutory provisions, particularly when neither the statute nor the relevant resolution vests any power of condonation or relaxation in the authority concerned. The direction to ignore the delay, according to learned counsel, amounts to impermissible judicial legislation. It is contended that the learned Single Judge overlooked the well-settled principle of finality of administrative and academic records, which ensures certainty, reliability, and sanctity of documents issued by statutory educational authorities. Entertaining stale and belated claims, it is argued, undermines public confidence and leads to administrative chaos. He further submits that the reliance placed on parity with WPC No. 410 of 2023 is wholly misplaced, as each writ petition is required to be decided on its own facts and legal merits. The earlier case neither laid down any binding precedent nor diluted the statutory limitation period prescribed by the Board. 10. Mr. Tiwari has submitted that the writ petitioner approached the Board after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than four 5 years from the declaration of result in March 2020, thereby squarely attracting the doctrine of delay and laches. Having slept over her alleged rights, the writ petitioner was not entitled to any equitable relief. He further submits that the impugned order runs contrary to binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 and State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, which categorically hold that belated and time-barred claims, particularly where a statutory limitation is prescribed, cannot be entertained. It is further argued that the appellant–Board had specifically drawn the attention of the learned Single Bench to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman (2003) 12 SCC 408, wherein the prescription of a limitation period for correction of date of birth in educational certificates was upheld, emphasizing the high degree of reliability and finality attached to such certificates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is submitted, expressly rejected the contention that students have a vested right to seek correction at any point of time. 11. Lastly, Mr. Tiwari submits that the impugned order, if permitted to stand, would set a dangerous precedent by enabling innumerable candidates to seek corrections in their academic records long after the statutory limitation period, thereby eroding the sanctity of the Board’s certificates and causing administrative instability. The direction to consider the case ignoring delay, it is contended, has 6 the effect of conferring jurisdiction where none exists and compels the statutory authority to act ultra vires its own rules and resolutions. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmity, non-application of mind, and misappreciation of the statutory scheme, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity and has been passed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the errors relating to the writ petitioner’s name and date of birth in the High School Examination Certificate-cum- Marksheet are purely clerical in nature and are duly supported by contemporaneous and authentic documents. Mr. Mishra submits that the learned Single Judge, while consciously refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits, has merely directed the appellant–Board to consider the writ petitioner’s application after verification of records, which is well within the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further urged that no prejudice is caused to the appellant–Board by such a direction, and the same has been issued to secure the ends of justice. 13. Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that the impugned order is contrary to the statutory scheme, as the 7 rules governing the Board prescribe a mandatory limitation of three years for correction of name or date of birth. The writ petitioner having approached the Board after an inordinate delay, the claim is barred by limitation and laches. The direction to consider the case by ignoring the delay amounts to conferring jurisdiction where none exists and compels the Board to act ultra vires its rules. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.4078/2025. 15. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “6. Having heard contentions of the parties, it is directed that the respondent Board shall consider the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in her high school examination certificate-cum-marksheet and pass appropriate orders ignoring the delay part subject to verification of all the documents. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case and the authority concerned would decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.” 8 16. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court notes that the writ petitioner has sought correction of her name and date of birth in the High School Examination Certificate-cum-Marksheet issued by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. The appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation and statutory provisions. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphasized that the Board, in exercise of powers under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965, has prescribed a time limit of three years from the date of declaration of result for seeking correction of name or date of birth. It is, however, noted that the Board has not framed any statutory rules or regulations prescribing the limitation period. The so-called three-year limitation arises solely from an executive resolution dated 28.02.2022, passed by the Executive and Finance Committee of the Board. While the resolution provides for a time-bound procedure, it cannot be equated with a statutory mandate, and the question of entertaining clerical corrections in records cannot be entirely foreclosed where the mistake is apparent and supported by contemporaneous documents. 18. In the facts of the present case, the error in the writ petitioner’s name and date of birth appears to be purely clerical in nature, as 9 demonstrated by the records filed before the Court. While the appellants contend that the writ petitioner approached the Board after an inordinate delay of more than four years from the declaration of the result, this Court finds that such corrections, if verified to be genuine, do not involve an exercise of discretion but only require rectification of manifest clerical mistakes. 19. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the writ appeal is disposed of with the following directions:- a) The writ petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, enclosing all relevant documents supporting her claim for correction of her name and date of birth. b) The Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education is directed to consider the representation, verify the records, and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with the documents submitted and the law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. c) It is clarified that the Board shall not be bound by the executive resolution limiting corrections to within three years, insofar as the errors are manifestly clerical and supported by contemporaneous records, and the Board shall ensure that its decision is reasoned and documented. 10 20. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu