HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.12765 OF 2013 Date:10.12.2014 Between:
J. Y. Rohit .. Petitioner And The Central Board of Secondary Education, Siksha Kendra 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi, Rep., by its Chairman, and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.12765 OF 2013 ORDER:
The petitioner, whose present age is 21 years, has passed S.S.C. Examination conducted by the 1st respondent Board during the All India Secondary School Examination held in 2007. As is evident from Ex.P1, the date of birth of the petitioner in the said certificate, is recorded as 16.08.1991. The petitioner states that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 16.08.1991 instead of 16.08.1993, which is inconformity with his birth certificate, dated 13.02.2010, issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). A copy thereof is filed as Ex.P2. The said certificate also bears Book No.6252 and Sl.No.625122.
The petitioner states that since the original birth certificate was not available with him, he could not seek for correction in the S.S.C. certificate earlier. He also states that since his father was working in Railways, which is a transferable job all over India, his maternal grandfather got him admitted in the school by recording wrong date of birth as 16.08.1991 instead of 16.08.1993. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent in January, 2013 seeking for correction of his date of birth and since no orders are passed, has approached this Court by present Writ Petition seeking mandamus, as prayed for.
The 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit through its Regional Officer, who inter alia states that the petitioner’s request for change of date of birth cannot be considered, as the request is made after more than five years of his passing S.S.C. Examination. In support of the same, he placed reliance on Bye-law 69.2 of the Examination Bye-Laws, 1995 framed by the 1st respondent.
I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
A copy of the date of birth certificate issued by the GHMC shows that the petitioner was born in a Government Civil Hospital, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, on 16.08.1993 and the names of his parents are J. Srinivas and J. Meenakshi. It is stated that the said birth was registered on 03.12.1993 and certificate was issued to the petitioner on 13.02.2010. Going by the said certificate, the date of birth recorded in the S.S.C. certificate is obviously not correct and even according to the petitioner, in the school records also the same wrong date of birth is shown, as he was admitted by his maternal grandfather. Possibility of mistake, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be ruled out. So far as the Examination Bye-Laws, a copy of which is produced by the learned Standing Counsel, are concerned, Bye-Law 69.2, which is extracted hereunder is necessary to be noticed:
“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.
** (iii) Request for correction in Date of Birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School along with attested Photostat copies of:
(a) application for admission of the candidate to the School;
(b) Portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been made along with attested copy of the Certificate issued by the Municipal Authority, if available, as proof of Date of Birth submitted at the time of seeking admission; and
(c) the School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at the time of admission.
*** (iv) The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of school along with documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2 (iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within five years of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever, shall be made on application submitted after the said period of five years.”
A reading of sub-rule (iii) would show that such a request for correction of date of birth can be made by the Head of the School by furnishing the requisite attested Photostat copies.
Sub-rule (iv) would show that the application for correction shall by duly forwarded by the Head of the School within five years and the same shall be entertained by the Board. In other words, if an application is to be forwarded by the Head of School, it is required to be forwarded within five years from the date of declaration and except the said sub-clause (iv), there is no other rule brought to my notice, which prescribes the limitation to take up the request for correction.
In the present case, the petitioner has made an application for correction in January, 2013, which is not by the Head of the School, as per sub-rules (iii) and (iv) of the Examination Bye-Laws. Obviously, the limitation prescribed under sub-rule (iv) cannot be applied to the request of the petitioner. Even otherwise also, the prescription of time limit is not to be treated as a prescription of limitation under statute like the Limitation Act and these are only self-imposed restrictions by the Board itself. As stated above, even otherwise, if an application is made for correction by the applicant himself, no such rule prescribing any time limit is brought to my notice. Hence, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that as the petitioner has not submitted the application for correction of date of birth within five years, as prescribed by the Board, his application cannot be considered.
In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for correction of his date of birth, after satisfying itself of the genuineness of the certificate given by the GHMC and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the request of the petitioner, in accordance with law. The 1st respondent is at liberty to obtain any information with regard to the date of birth certificate, including the certified copies thereof issued by the GHMC in order to satisfy itself that the said date is correct. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
10.12.2014
KH