1 CGHC010320462026 2026:CGHC:38450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4324 of 2026 Sumit Shukla S/o Rohit Shukla Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Adbhar, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretry, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Secretary, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492001 3 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Pin- 492001 4 - The Principal Sarswati Shishu Mandir Higher Secondary School, Akhrabhatha, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) Pin 495689 ... Respondents (Cause Title Taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, PL Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/08/2026 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:-- “ 10.1 Kindly call for entire records/documents in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 Kindly quash and set-aside Annexure P- 14 (impugned order) passed by CGBSE, Raipur (C.G.) 10.3 Kindly direct respondent authorities to effectuate correction of date of birth as 28.02.2004 in Annexure P-4 (Class-10th Mark- Sheet) of the petitioner. 10.4 Direct respondent authorities to correct the subsequent and consequential educational record such as Passing Certificate, Transfer Certificate, Migration certificate, Degree, (if any) in the line of corrected date of birth 28.02.2004, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice. 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-14) passed by the respondent authorities. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the correction of his date of birth in his Class- Xth mark-sheet. In this regard, the petitioner had approached the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education (CGBSE) seeking correction of his date of birth. However, the respondent authorities have declined to carry out the requisite correction in the Class- Xth mark-sheet. It is further submitted that the omission, inaction and refusal on the part of the respondent- CGBSE to correct the date of birth in the mark-sheet and the consequential educational records of the petitioner have compelled him to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the date of birth in the Class- Xth mark-sheet cannot be corrected, as the mark-sheet was issued on 30.11.2022 and the prescribed period for seeking such correction is three years. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier sought correction of certain particulars in the said mark-sheet, which had already been carried out and therefore, the subsequent application seeking correction of the date of birth is not in accordance with law. Moreover, he submits that the correction sought is only with regard to a difference of five days in the date of birth, i.e., 23.02.2004 and 28.02.2004, and such difference would not make any material difference. 4 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had sought correction of certain particulars in the said mark-sheet; however, at that time, he failed to state that his date of birth had been wrongly mentioned in the mark-sheet of Class Xth. Further, the difference between the date of birth recorded in the mark-sheet and the date of birth sought to be corrected is only five days. Since the prescribed period of three years has already expired and there is no substantial variation between the two dates, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 5. No order as to cost(s). SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL