MANIK P B BAMETA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
WPMS/1343/2026 · 2026-05-13
Pankaj Purohit
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5371 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5371 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:3640 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS No.1343 of 2026 Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel for petitioner.
2. Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for CBSE through V.C.
3. Mr. Ashish Joshi,
learned Counsel for respondent no.4 through V.C.
4. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking a direction for correction of date of birth of petitioner from 18.02.2004 to 18.02.2003 in the marks-sheet/certificate of Secondary School Examination and all other educational records.
5. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner was born on 18.02.2003 being a posthumous child of one Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bameta who was the Assistant Commandant in B.S.F. The birth certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Bamori contains the same date of birth of petitioner as
18.02.2003. On the basis of first certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, respondent no.4 has also issued the birth certificate to the petitioner having the same date of birth. But due to some inadvertent mistake, date of birth has wrongly been entered in the application form of Secondary School Examination conducted by the CBSE, and therefore, the marks-sheet/certificate issued by respondent nos.1 and 2 contain wrong date of birth i.e. 18.02.2004.
2026:UHC:3640
6. On the aforesaid background, petitioner made a representation to respondent no.3-the school which was forwarded to respondent nos.1 and 2 to correct the date of birth of petitioner in the Secondary School Examination marks-sheet/ certificate.
7. An innocuous prayer has been made by
learned Counsel for petitioner that respondent nos.1 and 2 be
directed to decide the representation dated 27.04.2026 moved by petitioner by a speaking order within a stipulated time.
8. The prayer so made is not opposed by learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally
disposed of with a direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 to decide the representation of petitioner dated 27.04.2026 strictly in accordance with law keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Jigya Yadav v. CBSE’ reported in 2021 (7) SCC Page 535 expeditiously, within a period of not more than four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.05.2026 R.Dang