1 2026:CGHC:22809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2457 of 2026 Aarti Tiwari D/o. Jai Prakash Tiwari Aged About 31 Years R/o. C/o. Prateek Upadhyay, B- 254 Pragati Nagar Near Shramveer Stadium Deepka District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Pension Bada, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Surguja District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - The Principal Swami Vivekanand Higher Secondary School Bishrampur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the inaction on the part of respondent authorities in not considering and deciding the petitioner’s representation dated 10.06.2016 seeking YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 17:27:09 +0530 2 correction of her date of birth in the Class 10th mark-sheet from 02.07.1993 to 02.07.1992, despite the petitioner claiming that her correct date of birth is 02.07.1992 as reflected in the school records and other educational documents, and seeks a direction to the respondents to issue corrected mark-sheet/certificate in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “(1) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records/documents in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. (2) That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate order(s)/writ(s)/direction(s) and direct to 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 2007-08) with the correct date of birth as 02.07.1992. (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. 3 (4) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual and correct date of birth of the petitioner is 02.07.1992, which is duly recorded in the Dakhil Kharij Register of the school where the petitioner initially studied and is also reflected in her earlier educational records and academic documents. It is submitted that on the basis of the Transfer Certificate issued by the earlier institution, the petitioner pursued her studies in different schools and ultimately completed her education including Master of Arts from C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur. Learned counsel submits that all the documents prior to Class 10th consistently mention the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.07.1992. 3. It is further submitted that while the petitioner was admitted in Swami Vivekanand Higher Secondary School, Bishrampur for Class 10th examination, due to an inadvertent clerical error, her date of birth came to be wrongly recorded as 02.07.1993 instead of 02.07.1992. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was unaware of such erroneous entry at the relevant time and the said discrepancy came to her knowledge only after issuance of the mark-sheet and certificate by the Board. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that immediately after discovering the aforesaid error, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 10.06.2016 before the competent authorities 4 requesting correction of her date of birth in the Class 10th mark- sheet on the basis of the original school records and supporting educational documents. However, despite lapse of several years, the respondent authorities have neither considered nor decided the said representation till date, which action is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to law. 5. Learned counsel lastly submits that an identical issue has already been considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2278 of 2022 (Kumari Poonam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), wherein this Court directed the competent authorities to consider the claim of correction of date of birth after verification of relevant records and issue fresh mark-sheet, if found correct. He would submit that the case of the present petitioner stands on identical footing and, therefore, the respondents may also be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and carry out necessary correction in the educational records in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 oppose the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and jointly submit that the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities for correction of date of birth at a highly belated stage. It is contended that as per the applicable rules and regulations governing correction in educational records, there is a prescribed limitation period of three years for seeking such correction and the 5 petitioner having submitted the application beyond the prescribed period, her claim is not liable to be entertained. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities are bound by the statutory provisions and procedural requirements applicable in such matters and, therefore, no indulgence is warranted in favour of the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to correction of her date of birth in the Class 10th mark-sheet/certificate issued by the respondent Board, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 02.07.1993 instead of 02.07.1992. The petitioner seeks correction of the aforesaid entry on the basis of earlier school records and other educational documents. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Class 10th certificate in question pertains to the academic session 2007-08 and the alleged discrepancy in the date of birth came to be questioned by the petitioner only after considerable lapse of time by way of representation dated 10.06.2016. 9. It is well settled that correction of date of birth in educational records cannot be claimed as a matter of right at any point of time, particularly after lapse of substantial period, as such corrections have far-reaching civil consequences and the sanctity and finality attached to public and educational records cannot be 6 permitted to be unsettled indefinitely. The respondent authorities have specifically contended that under the applicable rules and regulations governing the field, there exists a prescribed limitation period of three years for seeking correction in the date of birth recorded in the certificates issued by the Board. Admittedly, the petitioner approached the authorities much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 10. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to contend that the discrepancy occurred due to clerical error and that the petitioner became aware of the same subsequently, this Court is of the considered view that such disputed factual aspects involving verification of educational entries after an inordinate delay cannot be entertained in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, especially when the statutory framework itself prescribes a limitation period for seeking such correction. Mere existence of some supporting documents reflecting another date of birth would not automatically confer an indefeasible right upon the petitioner to seek alteration of long-standing educational records after expiry of the prescribed statutory period. 11. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2278 of 2022 is concerned, the same would not advance the case of the petitioner inasmuch as each case pertaining to correction of date of birth is required to be examined on its own facts, surrounding 7 circumstances and applicability of the relevant statutory provisions. The said order cannot be construed to mean that limitation prescribed under the applicable rules stands obliterated or that every delayed claim is liable to be entertained irrespective of delay and laches. 12. This Court is also mindful of the settled principle that a writ Court ordinarily does not exercise equitable jurisdiction in favour of a litigant who approaches the Court after unexplained and inordinate delay. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court despite the admitted delay in seeking correction of the educational record. 13. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. The instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh