JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. 1. Petitioner applied for change of date of birth as recorded in the Secondary School Examination, 2022 certificate. His request was rejected by the Central Board of Secondary Education on the ground that the change, if permitted, will reduce his age as 12 years as on 31.3.2022, which is less than the age required for appearing in 10 th Standard Examination. Thus feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2022, passed by the Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary Education, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashin the order dated 24.6.2022 issued by respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition). ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 and 3 to amend and enter the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 8.10.2009 in place of 8.10.2006 in the board 2. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner took admission in Aryman Vikram Birla Institute of Learning, Raja Rani Vihar, Haldwani in 3 rd Standard during academic session 2014-15 and his date of birth was recorded as 8.10.2006 in the school records. The same date of birth was indicated in the Secondary School Examination, 2022 certificate, issued by Central Board of Secondary Education. Petitioner applied for correction/change of date of birth by relying upon a birth certificate, issued by Nagar Nigam, Haldwani on 21.3.2022, in which petitioner’s date of birth is indicated as 8.10.2009. His application was rejected by Central Board of Secondary Education and against the rejection order, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is the earlier birth certificate, issued by Registrar, Births and Deaths, Nagar Nigam, Haldwani on 7.10.2011 and date of registration is mentioned in the certificate as 4.10.2011. As per the said certificate, petitioner was born at Haldwani on 8.10.2006. Thus the date of birth indicated in the birth certificate issued to the petitioner in 2022 is different from the date of birth indicated in the earlier birth certificate. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner’s request for correction of date of birth is based on a birth certificate issued by the competent authority, therefore, Central Board of Secondary Education was not justified in turning down petitioner’s request for correction/change of date of birth. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner’s request for correction of date of birth is based on a birth certificate issued by the competent authority, therefore, Central Board of Secondary Education was not justified in turning down petitioner’s request for correction/change of date of birth. He further submits that the reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s request is unjust and CBSE ought to have acceded to the request of the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the CBSE, however, submits that second birth certificate was issued by Nagar Nigam on 21.3.2022 i.e. prior to petitioner appeared in Secondary School Examination, however petitioner did not indicate the date of birth mentioned in that certificate in his examination form, as indicating such change would have rendered him ineligible for appearing in Secondary School Examination. Learned Counsel relies upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, (2021) 7 SCC 535 . Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment, as relied upon by learned Counsel, are extracted below: “ 160. The conditions regarding “correction” in name or date of birth are not as stringent as conditions applicable to change thereof. For correction in name, the 2018 Bye-laws provide for a limitation period of five years and permit such corrections that can be characterised as typographical, factual or spelling mistake in comparison with school records. Understandably, a correction would mean retention of the original record with slight modification to make it consistent with the school records. This requirement of modification could be born out of various reasons, namely, typographical mistake at the time of publishing, spelling error or factual error i.e. an error of fact as it existed at the time when the certificate was published. Thus, correction in name is done to bring unanimity between the school records (as they existed at the time of sending information to the Board) and CBSE certificates. However, if school records are altered afterwards and Board is called upon to alter its certificates in light of the updated school records, the same cannot be termed as correction per se but would be in the nature of recording change. Therefore, substantially deviating from a “correction”, the Bye-laws provide for an option to “change” the name, which is subject to different conditions. 161. Therefore, substantially deviating from a “correction”, the Bye-laws provide for an option to “change” the name, which is subject to different conditions. 161. Similar provision is available for “correction” in date of birth, either on the basis of school records or on the basis of order of court. The word “change” is not used for date of birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of birth and there can only be a correction to make it consistent with school record or order of court. It cannot be changed to replace the former with a fresh date of one's choice. Be it noted, provisions relating to correction in date of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections. The restriction regarding limitation period shall be examined later, along with other provisions. 162. The provision for “change” of name is far more stringent and calls for a thorough review to settle the correct position. As per the present law, change of name is permissible upon fulfilment of two prior conditions — prior permission of the court of law and publication of the proposed change in Official Gazette. These conditions co- exist with another condition predicating that both prior permission and publication must be done before the publication of result. What it effectively means is that change of name would simply be impermissible after the publication of result of the candidate even if the same is permitted by a court of law and published in Official Gazette. In other words, once the examination result of the candidate has been published, the Board would only permit corrections in name mentioned in the certificate. Further, changing the name out of free will is simply ruled out. 170. There is no difficulty in correcting CBSE record to bring it in conformity with the school record. The difficulty arises when a statutory document is not consistent with the school record. As observed earlier, the version supported by statutory documents could be reckoned for the purpose of correction in CBSE certificate to make it consistent with public documents. 171. Post 2018 amendment of Bye-laws, even in case of date of birth, corrections are permitted on two basis — to bring in conformity with school records and in pursuance of court order. As observed earlier, the version supported by statutory documents could be reckoned for the purpose of correction in CBSE certificate to make it consistent with public documents. 171. Post 2018 amendment of Bye-laws, even in case of date of birth, corrections are permitted on two basis — to bring in conformity with school records and in pursuance of court order. The relevant provision reads thus: “A. Correction as per the school records: i. Corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board. *** B. Correction as per Court Orders: Applications regarding correction in date of birth of candidates will be considered provided the correction have been admitted by the court of law. In cases of correction in date of birth in documents after the court orders caption will be mentioned on the document “CORRECTION ALLOWED IN DATE OF BIRTH FROM ____ TO ____ ON (DATED) ____ AS PER COURT ORDER NO. ____ DATED ____”.” 172. When a student applies to a court of law for prior permission and/or declaration and produces public document(s), the court would enter upon an inquiry wherein the legal presumption would operate in favour of the public document(s) and burden would shift on the party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or oppose the claim on any other ground. The question of genuineness of the document including its contents would be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the court of law would permit the desired change only upon verifying the official records and upon being satisfied of its genuineness. At the same time, the question of justiciability of the requested changes would be considered and only upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated by the student, the court would grant its permission. The said permission can then be placed before the Board along with copy of publication in the Official Gazette and requisite (prescribed) fee (if any). The Board would then have no locus to make further enquiry nor would be required to enter upon any further verification exercise. 173. The said permission can then be placed before the Board along with copy of publication in the Official Gazette and requisite (prescribed) fee (if any). The Board would then have no locus to make further enquiry nor would be required to enter upon any further verification exercise. 173. We may now advert to the dictum of the Kerala High Court in Subin Mohammed [Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 39731 : (2016) 1 KLT 340 ] . The same has been relied upon in most of the impugned judgments for permitting corrections. In that decision, the Court discussed the inadequacies in the Bye-laws and issued directions to CBSE to correct date of birth with reference to statutory birth certificates provided the request is found to be genuine. The operative directions read thus : (SCC OnLine Ker para 42) “42. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate for this Court to dispose the writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That CBSE shall correct the entries in the marksheet of the petitioners with reference to their corresponding birth certificates issued by the statutory authority, if the request is found to be genuine. (ii) Genuineness of the birth certificate can be ascertained from the respective local/statutory authority/Head of the Institution or such other method, CBSE may deem it fit. (iii) CBSE can demand in advance a consolidated fee, including all expenses for processing such applications. (iv) Each of the petitioners shall pay Rs 5000 (Rupees five thousand only) as cost to CBSE within a period of one month.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the task of determining genuineness of the request was left to the CBSE, which not only goes contrary to our discussion above but also fails to take into account the limitations of CBSE as a body. While considering requests for changes in certificates, CBSE cannot act as a court and it cannot effectively consider any request over and above those requests that merely require bringing the certificates in conformity with the school records or public documents, as the case may be. 186. Thus, the courts need to be extra cautious and alive to the immediate factual position before permitting changes. No two requests for change of name or change in date of birth can be viewed with the same judicial eye. 186. Thus, the courts need to be extra cautious and alive to the immediate factual position before permitting changes. No two requests for change of name or change in date of birth can be viewed with the same judicial eye. Sometimes, change of name could be a necessity, sometimes it could be a pure exercise of free will without any need. As long as bye-laws or the applicable rules permit so, there is no occasion for any court to deny such relief. But when bye-laws do not permit for the same, the court must be circumspect before issuing directions, that too without commenting upon the validity of the bye-laws and without demonstrating the rights which are at stake — constitutional or legal. Conclusion and directions to CBSE 192. Although we have discussed the broad issues canvassed before us, in the ultimate analysis the real dispute requiring resolution is about the nature of correction or change, as the case may be, permissible to be carried by the CBSE at the instance of the student including past student. As noted earlier, broadly, two situations would arise. 193. The first is where the incumbent wants “ correction ” in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. 194. As regards request for “change” of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like birth certificate, Aadhaar card, election card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate. 194.1 . Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. 194.1 . Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing public notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten). 194.2 . However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.” 6. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.” 6. Now, coming back to the facts of the present case, the date of birth recorded in the school records at the time of petitioner’s admission is based on a birth certificate, in which his date of birth is recorded as 8.10.2006. The date of birth mentioned in the Secondary School Examination, 2022 certificate is consistent with the date of birth mentioned in the school records. Earlier birth certificate was issued to petitioner on 7.10.2011. More than 10 years thereafter, petitioner obtained another birth certificate with a different date of birth, namely, 8.10.2009. The date of birth mentioned in the second birth certificate obtained by the petitioner does not align with the date of birth mentioned in the school records. Petitioner never bothered to have his date of birth corrected in the school records, based on the subsequent birth certificate. Thus Central Board of Secondary Education cannot be blamed for the discrepancy in the date of birth as mentioned in the Secondary School Examination, 2022 certificate. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the CBSE is right in pointing out that petitioner could have mentioned 8.10.2009 as his date of birth based on the birth certificate issued in March 2022 in the examination form, but he failed to do so. 8. Now, a piquant situation has arisen in the present case due to issuance of two birth certificates in favour of petitioner by the competent authority. There is difference of three years in petitioner’s age as per the dates indicated in these two certificates. There is nothing to indicate that the earlier birth certificate was cancelled while issuing another birth certificate in March 2022. Since both the certificates are issued by the competent authority and date of birth mentioned in these certificates are different, therefore, the date of birth which aligns with the school record will have presumption of validity. Thus it is not a case of correction of date of birth, rather petitioner wants date of birth to be changed based on a birth certificate issued subsequently. Since the earlier birth certificate has not been cancelled, therefore, it shall be presumed that the date of birth mentioned in the earlier certificate is correct. 9. Thus it is not a case of correction of date of birth, rather petitioner wants date of birth to be changed based on a birth certificate issued subsequently. Since the earlier birth certificate has not been cancelled, therefore, it shall be presumed that the date of birth mentioned in the earlier certificate is correct. 9. Even otherwise also, as per the subsequent birth certificate, petitioner was born on 8.10.2009, while he appeared in the Secondary School Examination in March, 2022. Thus at the time of appearing in the Secondary School Examination, as per the stand taken by the petitioner in his writ petition, he was less than 13 years of age. In the rejection order, it is mentioned that for admission in 10 th Standard, one should be more than 15 years of age. Thus if the request made by petitioner is acceded to, then he would be more than two years below the minimum required age for admission in 10 th Standard. Thus the case of petitioner is not covered by Clause 69.2 of Examination Bylaws framed by CBSE, which is extracted below: “Rule 69.2: Change/Correction in Date of Birth: (i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board’s records shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board. (ii) Such correction in Date of Birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidates/application form of the candidate for the examination.” 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do not find any infirmity or illegality, whatsoever, in the impugned order dated 24.6.2022. Thus there is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.