1 CGHC010097672025 2026:CGHC:31343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1586 of 2025 1 - Harsh Mishra S/o Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Near Ganesh Aata Chakki Dhekaha Post Rewa District - Rewa (M.P. ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through The Secretary, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Chhattisgar Board Of Secondary Education Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondents :- Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 22.07.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 06-11-2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1 in the larger interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent authority to immediately make correction of date of birth of the petitioner from 05-09-2004 to 05-12-2004 in his class 10th marksheet (Annexure P-2), in the larger interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition..” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application seeking correction of his date of birth, which has been wrongly recorded in the Class X mark sheet. It is submitted that the mark sheet was published in the month of March, 2020. However, the petitioner submitted an application for correction of his date of birth on 29.11.2024. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's actual date of birth is 05.12.2004, whereas it has been erroneously recorded as 05.09.2004 in the Class X mark sheet. It is contended that the discrepancy is merely on account of an incorrect entry of the month of birth and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking correction of the date of birth in the educational records. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the competent authority has rightly rejected the petitioner's application 3 for correction of the date of birth on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is submitted that the Class X mark sheet was published in March, 2020, whereas the application for correction was submitted only on 29.11.2024, i.e., beyond the prescribed period of three years. Therefore, in view of the applicable Rules/Bye-laws governing correction of educational records, the petitioner's request for rectification of the date of birth is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the applicable Rules/Bye-laws governing correction of entries in the mark sheet clearly prescribe that any application for correction of the date of birth or any other anomaly in the mark sheet is required to be submitted within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the mark sheet. 6. In the present case, the petitioner's Class X mark sheet was issued in the month of March, 2020, whereas the application seeking correction of the date of birth was submitted only on 29.11.2024, which is admittedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. 4 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the applicable provisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's request for correction of the date of birth cannot be entertained, as the same is barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 rejecting the petitioner's application has been rightly passed and does not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha