1 CGHC010204572023 2026:CGHC:38610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2935 of 2023 • Shailendra Kumar S/o Ganga Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Bahnakdi, Kurud Camp Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus • Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Secretary, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : None For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 01/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, order or strictly direction to the respondent authority to amend and correct the date of birth, i.e., 10.06.1999 instead of 10.06.1996 in 10th class mark sheet as per Annexure-P/7 within stipulated time at looking to his future, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 3. As per the relief clause, petitioner has prayed for the amendment or correction in the date of birth, which has been recorded way back in the year, 2016 and the application for amendment or correction in the date of birth has been filed after six years. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be rectified after the prescribed period of amendment or correction is of three years. Further, he placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of Shailendra Kumar Versus Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education, in WPC No.5817/2022. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, considering the submission made by the counsel for the respondent and particularly considering the fact that date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded way back in the year, 2016 and he has filed the application for amendment or correction after lapse of six years, whereas the prescribed period for amendment or correction is of three years, which is neither perverse nor contrary to law. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition warranting interference of this Court. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Deepti Jha