Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010016152026 2026:GAU-AS:1755 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/621/2026 PANCHANAN DAS S/O. LT. NAGEN CH. DAS, R/O. VILLAGE- MACHALABARI (GATI), P.O. CHAMUA GATI, P.S. SALBARI, DISTRICT- BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN-781318. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ASSAM, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI-21. 2:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 21 3:THE PRINCIPAL SALBARI H.S. SCHOOL P.O. SALBARI DIST. BAKSA BTR ASSAM PIN- 781320. 4:THE REGISTRAR BIRTH AND DEATH MINI PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE SAUDHARVITHA UNIT P.O. SAUDHARVITHA DISTRICT-BAKSA ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. RM Choudhury Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. DK Roy For respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 09.02.2026 Heard Mr. RM Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. DK Roy, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the notice upon the respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.01.1971 in all documents issued by the respondent No.1 inasmuch as, the said date of birth was wrongly recorded as 31.12.1967 in the Admit Card, marksheets and other certificates etc. 4. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the affidavit so filed by the petitioner that the petitioner himself has stated that he is 58 years old, meaning thereby that his date of birth corresponds to 1967. 5. Be that as it may, it shocks and surprises this Court as to on what basis the respondent No.4 could have issued the birth certificate of the petitioner on Page No.# 3/3 27.12.2025 stating that the petitioner’s date of birth is 18.01.1971 i.e. after more than 50 years. 6. The law in that regard is no longer res integra that unless exceptional circumstances does not merit, the question of permitting change of the date of birth at this late stage is not permissible. No circumstance has been placed before this Court or an explanation given as to why the petitioner only in the year 2025 realised that his date of birth has been wrongly mentioned and accordingly approached this Court. 7. Considering the above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant