Last Updated on May 27, 2024 by Satish Mishra
In this post we will discuss about a writ petition that was filed for correction of date of Birth in CBSE certificate.
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Education, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535. The prayer is to be made by the petitioner for correction of her date of birth being so based on a public document, in view of the conclusions as reached by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra), the authorities ought to have a due consideration to the prayer as made by the petitioner.
Also Read- Change petitioner’s birth year in Class X certificate
The prescription of three years’ bar takes care of all such situations. The provision is neither illegal nor beyond the purview of Section 24 of the Act and also cannot be called arbitrary or unreasonable. The applicants seeking rectification within a period of three years form a class by themselves and such prescription has a reasonable nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. No fault can be found therewith on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) allows applications for date of birth (DoB) corrections within one year of the result declaration date. The school head must forward the application along with the documents specified in byelaws 69.2(iii). After the one-year period, the CBSE will not accept any applications for corrections.
Also – Must read Circular of CBSE Revised Rules of correction/change in name/DoB
Link to CBSE for All Forms, Click here.
Angad Singh Chohan vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 19 December 2016
Petitioner
Angat Singh Chohan
Respondent
CBSE and others
In the instant case, the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking the correction of his date of birth which according to the birth certificate dated 13.11.1997, exhibited his date of birth as 10.11.1997. The said birth certificate was registered on 12.11.1997 wherein Pritpal Singh and Monica had registered the birth of a male child. The registration date is of utmost importance in the present case as the same was registered within 2 days of the date of birth. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that Certificates issued by the Registrar carries ample evidentiary value and the same cannot be brushed aside lightly. In Narinder Kaur v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and others wherein it was observed:
“The main rationale behind the dismissal of the writ petition, by the High Court, filed by the appellant is that the appellant failed to show satisfactorily that she had not taken any undue advantage of the recorded date of birth. The High Court further held that belonging to a mature class and age the appellant must have influenced the mind of the Selection Committee and therefore the principle of estoppel would operate to the facts of the case. The High Court also held that notification dated 13.08.2001 is discretionary in nature and the appellant is not entitled to change her birth date on the basis of the said notification.
The Apex Court observed that in the affidavit filed by the State of Punjab and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, no material was produced on record to prove that the appellant had taken undue advantage of the recorded date of birth. The Court also pointed out that it was highly unlikely that the Selection Committee while selecting the appellant as Civil Judge must have been influenced by the age of the appellant as declared by her in the application form for selection.
In the present appeal, the registered certificate dated 11.1.1972 issue by Dr. J.P Singh, Director, Health and Family Welfare-cum-Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths, Punjab has depicted the date of birth of the appellant as 9.1.1972. Thus, the State of Punjab has admitted that the correct date of birth if the appellant as per the registered certificate is 9.1.1972.
And in the view of the evidentiary value of the registered certificate, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is liable to be set aside. The order dated 12.4.2002 prohibiting the appellant to change her date of birth from 26.1.1971 to 9.1.1972 is also set aside. And accordingly, the appellant is allowed to carry out the necessary changes.”
ALSO READ-DRAFTING WRIT PETITION PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT
In the present appeal, the rejection on behalf of the respondent-board is on technical grounds that the representation for correction had not been initiated within a year of the declaration of the result. This argument is based on the amended by-laws of the respondent board which came into effect from 31.03.2015. Rule 69.2(iv) as amended provides that an application to correct typographical error or any other errors to make the certificate consistent with school records would only be entertained within one year from the declaration of the result and no correction shall be made on the application submitted after the period of one year.
In the instant case, the certificate was issued by the respondent-board on 20.05.2014 wherein the date of birth if the petitioner was depicted as 10.12.1997 instead of 10.11.1997. Following the regulation, the petitioner applied through the school and the school forwarded the application on 10.09.2015 which led to the rejection of the application being beyond the period of one year from the declaration of the result. The Court also observed that the petitioner’s mother also filed two applications dated 28.01.2016 and 16.03.2016 asking for action to be taken as per the request communicated by the school.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted the certificates dated 06.02.2006 and 25.06.2015 to throw light on the fact that the school records have always shown the date of birth of the petitioner as per the correction sought. The certificate dated 06.02.2006 is generously before the request made by the school in the year 2015, however, the school has not come forward to support the case of the petitioner.
ALSO READ-CORRECTING NAME MISTAKE IN CLASS 10TH CERTIFICATE OF CBSE
The Court observed that in the present case the petitioner himself was associated with the respondent-board and studied in the same school and completed his 10+2 subsequently, his result was declared in 2016 which is clear from the communication of the mother dated 28.01.2016. The petitioner, therefore, passed out only in the year 2016 and the result of the board was also declared in 2016.
Under such circumstances, the court held dismissing the application on the basis of a technicality is without justification. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 14.06.2016 is quashed. The respondent-board is directed to process the application of the petitioner and change the date of birth on merits within a period of two months.
This post was written by Aniket Rai.
Contact expert top writ lawyers and advocates who can assist you on the above topic are always available in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali and nearby regions.
For more info on subject, dial 99888-17966
