Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010143052026 2026:GAU-AS:12769 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./120/2026 SAIDUR RAHMAN S/O. LT. JAMSHED ALI, R/O. VILL.- TENGAGURI, P/O. TENGAGURI, P/O. TENGAGURI, P/S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE SECRETARY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21 3:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LAHARIGHAT P.O AND P.S - LAHARIGHAT DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782127 4:THE HEADMASTER PHALIHAMARIPAM M.V SCHOOL VILLAGE-PHALIHAMARIPAM P.O AND P.S- BHURAGAON ASSAM PIN 78212 Page No.# 2/11 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S. K. CHAKMA, MS. D GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 02-09-2026 Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the review petitioner. 2. The present review petition has been instituted praying for recall of the order dated 08-06-2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3709/2022. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the present review petition, in brief, is noticed as under:- 3.1. The review petitioner had appeared in his HSLC examination, conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA), in the year 1984. The review petitioner had cleared the said examination and was issued with his HSLC certificate. In the HSLC certificate, issued to the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded, as “01-10-1966”. It is found that the petitioner, thereafter, pursued his higher studies and was, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Phalihamaripam M.V. School, vide an order dated 30-01-1996. After the appointment of the petitioner, as the Assistant Teacher has occasioned, it was projected that the petitioner had submitted an application before the Secretary, SEBA, for correction of his date of birth, as recorded in his HSLC certificate as “01-04-1968” in place of “01-10-1966”. In support of the claim the petitioner, had submitted a birth certificate Page No.# 3/11 obtained by him on 02-11-1997, after registering his birth before the concerned authority. The petitioner, in support of his claim for correction of his date of birth, in addition to the birth certificate brought on record, had relied upon the endorsement made by the Principal, Buragaon Haricharan Sarkari Higher Secondary School, on the body of the application submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary, SEBA and a communication dated 30-03-1998, issued by the Assistant Inspector of Schools of Morigaon District Circle, Morigaon, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner, on verification was held to be “01- 04-1968” instead of “01-10-1966”, as recorded in his HSLC certificate. The application submitted by the petitioner, not being considered by the SEBA authorities, the petitioner had instituted the above noted writ petition. 3.2. This Court vide order dated 08-06-2026, on an consideration of the issues arising in the matter and after hearing the parties to the proceeding had proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner, for correction of his date of birth and had accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. The present review petition has been, thereafter, instituted by the petitioner. 4. Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the review petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that, this Court had rejected the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, on the ground that the delay in approaching the SEBA authorities, for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner, was not explained by the review petitioner and further the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in his matriculation certificate was so based on the particulars submitted by the authorities of the School, from where the petitioner had appeared in his HSLC Page No.# 4/11 examination. Ms. Ghosh submits that the materials brought on record in the writ petition had categorically demonstrated that, there was an error in recording the date of birth of the petitioner, as “01-10-1966”. She submits that the endorsement of the Principal of the School, from where the petitioner had appeared in his HSLC examination in the year 1984, as made on the body of the application submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary, SEBA and the Enquiry Report dated 30-03-1998, submitted by the Assistant Inspector of Schools, Morigaon District Circle, Morigaon, would clearly go to establish that there was an error in recording of the date of birth of the petitioner in his HSLC records. 4.1. Ms. Ghosh submits that the petitioner in the writ petition had brought on record the application submitted by him before the Secretary, SEBA authorities along with supporting documents, for effecting correction of his date of birth in his HSLC certificate. She, however, submits that inadvertently the receipt of the fee deposited by the petitioner on 03-04-1998, for such correction was not brought on record and accordingly, the same has been brought on record in the present review petition. Ms. Ghosh, submits that the petitioner having duly submitted his application for correction of his date of birth and paid the requisite fee, the delay, if any, had so occasioned on account of non- processing of the said application by the SEBA authorities. 4.2. Ms. Ghosh further submits that the application as preferred by the petitioner, before the SEBA authorities in the year 1997, followed by the deposit of the requisite fee on 03-04-1998, would go to reveal that such steps were not taken by the petitioner on the eve of his superannuation or proximate, thereto. Accordingly, she submits that there was no bar on the part of the authorities of the SEBA, to correct the date of birth of the Page No.# 5/11 petitioner, as recorded in his HSLC records. Ms. Ghosh submits that the application along with the reports in support of the same, having been brought on record in the writ petition, this Court had miserably failed to appreciate the same while passing of the order dated 08-06-2026, towards rejecting the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 4.3. In the above background, Ms. Ghosh submits that the petitioner having demonstrated that his date of birth, as recorded in his HSLC records, to have been erroneously recorded, the correct date of birth of the petitioner, being demonstrated to be “01-04-1968”, the same was mandated to be reckoned by the SEBA authorities. More so, when the requisite fee for the purpose was received by the SEBA authorities. Ms. Ghosh, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a prejudice admittedly having been caused to the petitioner, in the matter on recording of his date of birth correctly in his HSLC records, the correction of such error would not be permissible to be rejected, basing on a technical ground of delay, in approaching this Court. Ms. Ghosh, further, submits that the petitioner having been recruited as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1996, he had on appreciating the fact that his date of birth was erroneously recorded in his HSLC records, approached the SEBA authorities in the year 1997 followed by deposit of the requisite fee in the year 1998. Accordingly, Ms. Ghosh submits that the application being submitted by the petitioner, within a year from the date he had joined his service, as an Assistant Teacher, there is no delay in approaching the respondent authorities and the writ petition being dismissed by this Court also on the ground of delay in approaching the SEBA authorities for correction of the date of birth in his HSLC records, the order dated 08-06-2026, would mandate to be reviewed and recalled. Page No.# 6/11 4.4. Ms. Ghosh in support of her submissions have relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320. (b) State of W.B. & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612. (c) UoI Vs. Harnam Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 262. (d) Secretary & Commissioner; Home Deptt. & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Supp (I) SCC 155. (e) State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Premlal Shrivan, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664. (f) R.K. Jangra Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1615/2009 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2389/2008) decided on 16-03-2009]. (g) Jigya Yadav (minor) through Guardian/ Father Hari Singh Vs. CBSE & Ors. reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 6. The contention raised by the review petitioner in the review petition is found to be the same very contentions, basing on which the writ petition was filed and argued. The projection of the petitioner in both, the writ petition as well as in the review petition, is that he had promptly, after being appointed as an Assistant Teacher, approached the SEBA authorities, for correction of his date of birth. However, the SEBA authorities had not proceeded with the matter and had kept the same pending for decades, which had led to the institution of the connected writ petition. 7. As noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner had appeared in his HSLC examination in the year 1984. Even considering the date of birth of the petitioner to be “01-04-1968”, this Court finds that as on 1984, when the petitioner had appeared for his HSLC examination, the petitioner was aged around 16 years. The petitioner, thereafter, continued with his studies and was vide order dated 30-01-1996, appointed as an Page No.# 7/11 Assistant Teacher in Phalihamaripam M.V. School. On the date when the petitioner was so appointed as an Assistant Teacher, considering his date of birth to be “01-04-1968”, the petitioner is found to be aged around 28 years, i.e. his such appointment had occasioned after around 10 (ten) years from the date the petitioner had attained his majority. Although the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his HSLC certificate, had come to his notice after 1984, on several occasion, when the petitioner had pursued his higher course of study as well as underwent the process of recruitment for appointment as an Assistant Teacher, the petitioner is not found to have raised any grievance before the SEBA authorities for correction of his date of birth recorded in his HSLC certificate. 8. Noticing the said aspect of the matter and also the stand of the SEBA authorities that correction of date of birth recorded in a HSLC certificate would be permissible, if an application is submitted within a period of 03 (three) years from the date of appearance by the candidate in his HSLC examination, this Court had proceeded to reject the claim made by the petitioner in the connected writ petition. As noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner had appeared in his HSLC examination in the year 1984 and had submitted his application for correction of his date of birth for the first time in the year 1997, i.e. 13 (thirteen) years after he had cleared his HSLC examination. This Court basing on the said materials and circumstances on record, had drawn the following conclusions in the order dated 08-06-2026:- “7. The petitioner, herein, had admittedly passed his HSLC examination in the year 1984, with Roll-35 No. 89. The authorities of the then SEBA had in this connection issued to the petitioner his HSLC examination 1984 certificate and therein, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as “01-10-1966”. The petitioner is found to have, thereafter, pursued his further studies and on acquiring Page No.# 8/11 the requisite eligibility is further found to have appointed as Assistant Teacher in Phalihamaripam M.V. School by an order dated 30-01-1996, issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Morigaon. Till the petitioner was recruited as an Assistant Teacher in the said School vide issuance of an order dated 30-01-1996, the petitioner is found to have not raised any objection with regard to the recording of his date of birth in his HSLC certificate. 8. After around a lapse of 01 (one) year from the date of recruitment as Assistant Teacher vide order 30-01-1996, the petitioner is found to have submitted an application to the then Secretary, SEBA on 08-02-1997. On the body of the said application, the Principal of Buragaon Haricharan Sarkari Higher Secondary School if found to have made an endorsement to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner, as per School record, was “01-04-1968” and not “01-10-1966” as recorded in his HSLC certificate. The petitioner, thereafter, is found to have obtained a birth certificate from the Directorate of Health Services. A perusal of the said birth certificate, would go to reveal that the application for the same was so registered on 02-11-1997 and the certificate was issued to the petitioner on 13-02- 1998. While the said certificate has been brought on record, the petitioner in the writ petition has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the delayed registration of his date of birth was so effected by strictly complying with the provisions of the Registration of Birth & Death Act, 1969, and the same was so done after the approval of the designated authority competent to condone the delay in registration of his birth, was so received. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the said birth certificate would be of no consequence and would not mandated to be so reckoned for the purpose of considering the claim made by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 9. This Court from the affidavit filed by the then authorities of the SEBA, finds that the date of birth of the petitioner in his HSLC certificate was recorded basing on the particulars furnished by the authorities of the School, from where he had appeared in the HSLC examination in the year 1984, i.e. Buragaon Haricharan Sarkari Higher Secondary School. A perusal of the particulars so furnished in respect of the petitioner reveals that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as “01-10-1966”. The authorities of the then SEBA had recorded the date of birth of the petitioner in their records strictly basing on the particulars furnished by the said School authorities. Further, as per Regulations holding the field, any erroneous recording of the fact in a HSLC certificate, is permitted to be corrected, provided an application in this connection is made within 03 (three) years from the date of the examination concerned, along with payment of necessary fees. However, in the present case it is found that the petitioner had appeared in his HSLC examination in the year 1984 and after 13 (thirteen) years of having so appeared in the said examination, an application for correction to his date of birth as recorded in his HSLC certificate came to be made on 08-02-1997. The delay occasioning on the part of the petitioner in approaching the respondent No. 2 for correction of his date of birth is not explained in the writ petition. Accordingly, this Page No.# 9/11 Court is of the considered view that the application as submitted by the petitioner, for correction of his date of birth is with a view to take a chance of extending his service period, after he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Phalihamaripam M.V. School. Accordingly, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is found to be not acceptable.” 9. This Court finds that the petitioner in the review petition, has sought to raise a contention that the period of limitation for filing of an application for correction of date of birth, as recorded in his HSLC records, would be deemed to have started only after the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1996. In the considered view of this Court, such contention raised by the petitioner is contrary to the Regulations of the SEBA holding the field, which mandates such application for correction of date of birth and/ or any other particulars of the HSLC certificate of the candidate to be so preferred within a period of 03 (three) years from the date of the examination. This Court finds from the materials brought on record, in the present review petition as well as from the written arguments submitted in the matter by the petitioner that the petitioner seeks to re-argue the matter on merits and the reliance placed by this petitioner, upon receipt of deposit of fee for such correction made by the petitioner in the year 1998, in the considered view of this Court, does not, in any manner, render the findings of this Court, in the order dated 08-06-2026, to be erroneous. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, with the maintainability of a review petition held as follows:- “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: Page No.# 10/11 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 11. Applying the said decision to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to highlight discovery of any new and important matter or evidence, which after due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. As already held by this Court, hereinabove, the introduction of the Page No.# 11/11 receipt of the fee deposited by the petitioner in the year 1998 for the purpose of correction of his date of birth, in no way undermines the conclusions drawn by this Court, vide the order dated 08-06-2026. The petitioner in the present review petition seeks the same relief as sought for in the connected writ petition, without, however, demonstrating any apparent error occasioning in the conclusions drawn by this Court vide order dated 08-06-2026. The petitioner by way of instituting the present review petition, has sought to repeat the overruled argument and basing on such projections, the order dated 08-06- 2026, is not mandated to be reviewed. Accordingly, this Court holds the present review petition to be not maintainable. 12. In view of the conclusions drawn by this Court, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, is found to not advance the case of the petitioner and accordingly, a detailed discussion, thereon, is not made. 13. In view of the above discussion, the present review petition stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant