The date of birth recorded in the class X certificate issued by the C.B.S.E in the year 2017 was contested by the petitioner by filing an application for change of date of birth. According to the petitioner the correct date of birth was 05.05.2003 which was incorrectly recorded as 05.05.2000 in the aforesaid certificate.
By the impugned order dated 07.04.2018 the application of the petitioner for the aforesaid alteration has been rejected. The impugned order passed by the C.B.S.E Board records that "all School Record submitted by the school authority found tampered (sic)".
When the issue of tampering in the school records was raised the Court had summoned the records from the C.B.S.E Board.
It is not in the province of the Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction to enter into disputed questions of facts which require reception of evidence. However to satisfy itself whether there was due application of mind to the material before the C.B.S.E Board, this Court has perused the record.
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the C.B.S.E Board has pointed out that a marker was applied on the date of birth column in the original record. The class-I certificate which was produced recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.05.2003. The same has been issued purportedly by the school under the name and style "Yoga Convent School" which also states "C.B.S.E Pattern". From the aforesaid certificate the age of the petitioner at the time of his admission to class-I was less than 4 years. Admittedly this is contrary to the C.B.S.E admission and eligibility rules. According to the C.B.S.E Rules to secure admission to class-I the minimum age required is 5 years and the maximum is 7 years. Though Yoga Convent School professes to be running as C.B.S.E pattern it has clearly violated eligibility criteria for age by admitting the child in class-I who is below the eligibility age. This is another suspicious evidence in the circumstances which cloud the date of birth controversy. There is a discrepancy and an apparent interpolation in another documents in the record.
The Divine Sainik School, Varanasi in which the student was enrolled in class IX has also admitted that a whitener was used in the document date of birth due to clerical mistake. Similarly the copy of the original transfer certificate purportedly issued by B.N.S school, Varanasi was not produced by the school authorities. From the pleadings as well as records before this Court serious disputes about facts and evidence arise. No perversity in the conclusion returned by the authorities in the impugned order has been established from the pleadings and the records, nor any or procedural propriety while deciding the controversy has been established. In the wake of the preceding discussion there is no cause for interference in the impugned order while exercising discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Besides this the Court also finds that the petitioner did not respond with sufficient promptitude to the incorrect date of birth recorded in class X certificate. The delay in applying for alteration in the date of birth puts a question mark on the bona fides of the petitioner and the proceedings seem to be an afterthought. It is often noticed by the Court that parents with a view to giving an unfair advantage to their wards often give false dates of birth and even tamper to the records. The Court was initially minded to direct the police authority to register an FIR, however, considering the fact that future of a young child may be spoiled by such investigation the Court held its hand back.
The petitioner could not bring any evidence to dispute the aforesaid findings before the authorities. No perversity in the finding or illegality in the order is established from the pleadings in the record, nor were they otherwise pointed out in the arguments. Further, there is nothing in the record of the writ petition to warrant interference in the impugned order.
It was pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the class XII certificate was 05.05.2003.
The date of birth recorded in the class X and XII certificates have to be consistent otherwise the student will suffer and his academic career shall be jeopardized. No lawful basis has been shown for this Court in writ jurisdiction to hold that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 05.05.2003. In such view of the matter the date of birth i.e. 05.05.2000 as recorded in the class X certificate shall be deemed to be correct. Corresponding correction shall be made in the date of birth of Class XII certificate issued to the petitioner.
It is clarified that the controversy is being adjudicated within the limitations of writ jurisdiction wherein the Court cannot receive and appraise evidence, in regard to seriously disputed question of fact.
In case the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to him to take out appropriate proceedings before the civil court.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.
Original records are returned to Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for C.B.S.E Board.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Nadeem Ahmad