1 CGHC010242462026 2026:CGHC:30137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3531 of 2026 Ramesh Kumar Jangde S/o Late Shri Siyaram Aged About 36 Years R/o B-10, S.E.C.L, Manikpur Colony, Korba, District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Secondary Education Board, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate For State-Respondent No.1 : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, whereby the petitioner's application seeking correction of his date of birth in YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.17 10:58:03 +0530 2 the Class-X High School marksheet has been rejected on the ground that the application for correction was preferred beyond the prescribed period of three years under the applicable Regulations. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent-Board to rectify the date of birth recorded in the Class-X marksheet from 12.01.1989 to 23.12.1989 and to issue a fresh marksheet. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “1] That, this Hob'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 7/5/2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Secretary, C.G Secondary Education Board. 2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Chhattisgarh Secondary Education Board to rectify the error in the mark sheet of Class-Xth and reissue the same, in the interest of justice. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the incorrect date of birth recorded in the petitioner's Class-X marksheet is purely a typographical mistake committed by the respondent-Board and not attributable to the petitioner. It is 3 argued that in all other public documents including the Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, Class-V and Class-VIII marksheets, School Leaving Certificate, Employment Registration Certificate, PAN Card and Voter Identity Card, the petitioner's date of birth has consistently been recorded as 23.12.1989, thereby leaving no dispute regarding his actual date of birth. It is further submitted that the necessity for correction never arose earlier and the petitioner became aware of the practical consequences of the error only after the unfortunate demise of his father, who was serving in SECL, when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and was directed by the employer to get the discrepancy rectified in the educational records. 3. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.4823/2026, pursuant to which his representation was directed to be considered; however, the respondent-Board rejected the same solely on the technical ground of limitation without appreciating that the mistake was committed by the Board itself. It is contended that such a hyper-technical approach defeats the object of justice, particularly when the correction sought is supported by unimpeachable contemporaneous documents and is essential for securing compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and 4 the respondent-Board be directed to correct the petitioner's date of birth. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the competent authority has acted strictly in accordance with the statutory Regulations governing correction of entries in educational records. It is submitted that the writ petition does not disclose any arbitrariness or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education would submit that the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth has rightly been rejected as the same was admittedly filed far beyond the period prescribed under the relevant Regulations, which mandate that such an application is required to be submitted within three years from the date of declaration of the examination result. It is argued that the Regulations are binding in nature and the Board has no authority to relax or ignore the prescribed limitation merely on sympathetic or humanitarian considerations. It is further submitted that educational records attain finality after expiry of the prescribed period and permitting correction after several decades would seriously affect the sanctity, certainty and authenticity of public records maintained by the Board. It is contended that the Board 5 has merely implemented the statutory provisions and has not committed any illegality or arbitrariness. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions with utmost circumspection and perused the material available on record. 7. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether this Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the order passed by the respondent-Board rejecting the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth on the ground that the application was preferred beyond the period prescribed under the applicable Regulations. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner seeks correction of his date of birth in the Class-X marksheet after a considerable lapse of time. Equally, it is not disputed that the competent authority has rejected the application solely on the ground that the request was made beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Regulations governing correction of educational records. The Regulations prescribing a specific time limit for seeking correction of date of birth have been framed with the object of ensuring certainty, authenticity and finality of academic records. Such Regulations cannot ordinarily be ignored merely because hardship may be caused in an individual case. Once a statutory 6 authority acts strictly within the four corners of the governing Regulations, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 remains limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the statutory authority nor can it direct an authority to act contrary to the statutory provisions. 9. The submission of the petitioner that the discrepancy came to his notice only when he applied for compassionate appointment after the death of his father undoubtedly evokes sympathy. However, it is well settled that sympathy or equitable considerations cannot override binding statutory provisions. Compassionate appointment itself is not a vested or fundamental right but an exception carved out to meet immediate financial hardship, and such a claim cannot furnish a legal basis for directing the respondent-Board to disregard the Regulations governing correction of educational records. Merely because other documents reflect a different date of birth would not, by itself, empower this Court to issue a mandamus compelling the statutory authority to act in derogation of the Regulations when the application itself is barred by limitation. 10. This Court also finds that the impugned order neither suffers from lack of jurisdiction nor from any procedural irregularity, arbitrariness or perversity. The competent authority has considered the petitioner's representation and has assigned a reason founded upon the applicable statutory provisions. The 7 petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the prescribed Regulation itself has been challenged or declared unconstitutional, or that any statutory power exists enabling the respondent-Board to condone the delay or relax the prescribed limitation. In absence of any such challenge, this Court cannot issue a direction which would effectively amount to rewriting or dispensing with the statutory Regulations. 11. In exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, interference is warranted only where the impugned action is arbitrary, mala fide, without jurisdiction or contrary to law. None of these contingencies is made out in the present case. The impugned order is a reasoned order passed in conformity with the governing Regulations and does not call for interference merely because the petitioner may suffer hardship on account of its consequences. 12. Accordingly, finding no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 13. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh