1 CGHC010260812026 2026:CGHC:29539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3633 of 2026 1 - Abhishek Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Ramnath Dubey, Aged About 27 Years R/o Khedia Cold Storage, Village -Kubra, P.S. Jai Singh Nagar, District - Shahdol (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department, Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Chairman , Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education, Pension Bada, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education, Pension Bada, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Exam Controller, Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education, Pension Bada, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 : Shri Pankaj Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Shri Anand Dadariya, Dy AG. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned Respondent authorities to correct/amend the date of birth of the petitioner from '02.07.2002' to '12.08.1999' in the Class Xth Mark-sheet of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.15 19:09:10 +0530 2 proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case is that, the petitioner cleared her high school examination in March, 2015. In the said certificate issued his date of birth has been mentioned as 02.07.2002. According to the petitioner, his actual date of birth infact is 12.08.1999. The petitioner has recently realized the mistake and have made a request to the respondents to consider correction of the date of birth in the school certificates from 02.07.2002 to 12.08.1999. The counsel for the petitioner submits that subject to the respondents verifying it from the records available with the school authorities themselves, the date of birth may be corrected enabling the petitioner to have the rectified marksheet. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jigya Yadav (minor) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others, 2021(7)SCC 535. 3. 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 respondents 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 respondents further contended that under the bylaws and the instructions issued by the respondent No.2, it is not that there is no remedy available to the 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 a floodgate of such request 3 from all corners. 4. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, if the contention of the petitioner is to be believed, in 2015, he had cleared high school examination as would be evident from Annexure P/1. Though the further informations are not available, but the counsel for the petitioner submits that he has done her graduation also. If that be so, if the petitioner has cleared 10th examination in 2015, he must have cleared 12th examination in 2017 and must have also done her graduation in 2020. Both, for her class 12th and for degree course, the petitioner must have filled her date of birth for getting admission stating it to be 12.08.1999. If the petitioner was aware of the fact that the date of birth reflected in the marksheet issued in 2015 was incorrect, they could have easily approached the authorities at that point of time itself for correction of date of birth. Even after 2020 since that is the time it is presumed that the petitioner must have done her graduation, thereafter also there is an unexplained inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the respondents for correction of the date of birth. 5. The Supreme Court in case of Jigya Yadav (Supra) itself has opined very clearly that not entertaining a request for correction of date of birth and providing a reasonable period of time within which the correction is permissible are entirely two different things. Not entertaining an application at the outset would be unreasonable and bad in law, and not entertaining an application beyond the period prescribed cannot be said to be arbitrary. According to Supreme Court, there is a mass distinction between total prohibition from correction and a reasonable restraint in approaching the 4 respondents for correction. While the former may be illegal, the latter cannot be said to be illegal as reasonable restraint is permissible to strike a proper balance between a student's right for correction of an error and the respondents claim of administrative efficiency and feasibility. 6. In the instant case also the bare perusal of the pleadings itself would show that the petitioner had cleared her high school examination in March, 2015 and the request for correction of the date of birth will be assumed from the date this petition has been filed i.e. year, 2026 i.e. almost after 10 years. 10 years period is a pretty long time for anybody to approach the competent authority and 10 years time cannot under any stretch of imagination be termed to be a reasonable period of time. Moreover, during this 10 years period the petitioner had multiple occasions for verifying the date of birth that was entered in the marksheet of her high school and 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. 7. The fact that the respondent No.2-establishment has a guideline which provides for a mechanism for correction of the date of birth and the guidelines also provide for a period within which the date of birth can 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. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.2 after a gap of 10 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 the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner. 5 8. The view of this court stands fortified by a decision of this High Court in 2009(3)CGLJ 103, Sudhir Ram Bhagat Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik Siksha Mandal & Another. 9. In view of the same, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash