1 CGHC010212572025 2026:CGHC:30292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2903 of 2025 1 - Sonali Kumari Sahani D/o Krishna Sahani Aged About 22 Years R/o 144, Choudhary Niwas, Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, Zone - Ii Sector- 11 Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board. Of Secretary Education Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - District Education Officer Durg District- Durg (C.G.). 3 - Principal Pt. J.L. Nehru Higher Secondary School New Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P/1). Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authority to consider the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.10.2003 in place of 25.10.2001. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's date of birth is 25.10.2003, which has been consistently recorded in all his educational testimonials. It is submitted that the said date of birth was subsequently and erroneously altered to 25.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application before respondent No.2, the District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.), seeking correction of his date of birth. Upon verification of the documents produced by the petitioner, including her birth certificate and educational records, the District Education Officer, being satisfied as to their authenticity, corrected the petitioner's date of birth to 25.10.2003 in June, 2021. The relevant documents ascertaining such correction have been annexed with the petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also submitted an application dated 21.06.2021 before respondent No.1 seeking correction of her date of birth; however, no documentary proof ascertaining the filing of the said application is available on record. He next submits that once the petitioner's date of birth had been corrected by the competent authority, i.e., respondent No.2, on the basis of authentic documents such as the birth certificate and educational records, respondent No.1/Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education ought to have carried out the corresponding correction in its records. However, respondent No.1 rejected the petitioner's application vide order dated 10.01.2023, observing that there were anomalies and 3 corrections in the petitioner's date of birth and, therefore, the request for correction could not be considered. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed, as there are material irregularities and discrepancies in the records pertaining to the petitioner's date of birth. It is contended that merely because respondent No.2/District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) has corrected the petitioner's date of birth, respondent No.1 is not bound to carry out a corresponding correction in its records. It is further submitted that the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth was filed beyond the prescribed period by one month and eleven days and is, therefore, barred by limitation and not liable to be considered. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.2 submits that the District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) has rightly corrected the petitioner's date of birth on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner, including her birth certificate and other educational testimonials, after being satisfied with their authenticity. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 passed by respondent No.1/Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education does not contain any finding that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground of limitation, nor is there any whisper regarding the application being barred by time. Therefore, the contention subsequently raised by respondent No.1 that the application was filed beyond the prescribed 4 period cannot be accepted. Further, from the order passed by the concerned District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.), whereby the date of birth was corrected after considering the birth certificate and other educational testimonials of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner's correct date of birth is 25.10.2003 and the subsequent mentioning of the date of birth as 25.10.2001 was erroneous. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 is hereby quashed and respondent No.1/Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the documents produced by him, including the birth certificate, educational testimonials, and the order/recommendation issued by the concerned District Education Officer, and pass an appropriate order afresh without being influenced by the earlier order dated 10.01.2023. Respondent No.1 shall not reject the petitioner's claim on the ground of limitation, as the validity of an administrative order must be tested on the reasons recorded therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh grounds subsequently advanced before this Court. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent and every case shall be considered on its own facts and merits. The concerned authorities i.e. respondent No. 1 is directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.10.2003 within a period of 45 days from the production of copy of this order. 6. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju