JUDGMENT S. K. Dhaon, J. 1. This petition, at the instance of a student of St. Joseph College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the (College) stems from the orders passed by the Inspector of Anglo-Indian Schools (hereinafter referred to as the Inspector) refusing to enter the correct date of birth of the petitioner in the records of the college. 2. Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the Inspector. Shri P. K. Mukherji has put in appearance on behalf of the Principal of the college. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the principle of the college. The petitioner has not been formally admitted as yet. However, with the consent of the counsel for the parties this petition is being disposed of finally. St. Joseph College/School, an Anglo-Indian School, is governed by the Code of Regulations for Anglo-Indian Schools, U P The College/School is recognised by the I.S.C.E. Board., 3. The petitioner studied opto class VIII in Bal Bharti Nursery School, Allahabad. He left that school on 30-4-1985. A transfer certificate was issued to him by the Principal of the said School on 30-8-1985. In this certificate his date of birth is noted as 15-7-1973. In the year 1985 he was admitted in class VIII in the college. THE college required his father to submit an affidavit -regarding the date of his birth.' In that affidavit, somehow it vands averred that the petitioner was born on 15-7-1969. On the basis of the said affidavit the date of birth of the petitioner was registered as 15-7- 1969 in the records of the college THE petitioner discovered the error with respect to the date of his birth when he was required to fill up the examination form for appearing in the final examination of class X, an examination conducted by the I.S.C.E. Board. At that stage, the father of the petitioner approached the Principal of the college with an application seeking correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. His father was directed to contact the Inspector. Accordingly applications were made to the Inspector and upon these applications the impugned orders had been passed. 4. Rule 58 of the Code of Regulations of Anglo-Indian Schools, U. P., inter alia, provides that no recognized school shall admit a scholar without the transfer certificate from the last school which he attended. His father was directed to contact the Inspector. Accordingly applications were made to the Inspector and upon these applications the impugned orders had been passed. 4. Rule 58 of the Code of Regulations of Anglo-Indian Schools, U. P., inter alia, provides that no recognized school shall admit a scholar without the transfer certificate from the last school which he attended. The contents of rule 59 insofar as they are relevant to the present controversy are extracted :- ........ the date of birth of a scholar, as declared by a parent or the guardian at the time of his original admission to a recognised institution shall not be subsequently changed." The aforequoted provisions, it appears, have impelled the Inspector to take the view that no change of the date of birth of the petitioner is possible. Learned counsel for the parties have not been able to satisfy me that the Code of Regulations of Anglo-Indian Schools, U. P. have statutory force. The provision of law under "which the said Code of Regulations have been framed has not been brought to my notice. Therefore, the primary question is whether either the Principal of the college or the Inspector is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mathotsar Smarath Trust v. V. R. Rudani, 1989 (2) SCC 691 , it is held that the words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 are not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body The duty must be judged in the light of the positive obligation owned by the person or authority to the affected party, no matter by what means a duty is imposed. If a. positive obligation exists, mandamus cannot be denied. Their lordships quoted with approval the view expressed by Professor de Smith in Judicial Review on administrative action Fourth Edition page 540. "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by Statute. If a. positive obligation exists, mandamus cannot be denied. Their lordships quoted with approval the view expressed by Professor de Smith in Judicial Review on administrative action Fourth Edition page 540. "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by Statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract." IN any view of the matter, there cannot be getting away from the fact that the Principal as well as the Inspector are called upon to perform public duties when they are ased to ratify. the mistake committed by the parent of a student while giving out his age (student's). 6. Let us now revert to Rule 59. The crucial words in the said Rule are, in my opinion, "declared by a parent or guardian" and "at the time of his original admission to a recognised institution." The dictionary meaning of the word "declare" is "to make known, to announce." A man declares his opinion or bis intention when he states what his opinion is or what his intention are. In legal parlence "declare" may mean "to authoritatively set forth." In law- the term "declare" is sufficient to constitute a contract. It is thus apparent that a declaration must be a conscious one. It should be free from mistake or inadvertence. It should spring from an act of volition. It is well known that no valid contract comes into existence if it is based upon a mistaken view of the factual position. The thrust of Rule 59 is not that a declaration of age once given cannot be subsequently changed in any circumstance. The emphasis is that if a declaration of age has been given at the time of the admission to a recognised institution and that declaration of. age has continued to exist in the record of that institution then there could be no variation or deviation from that declaration on a future date. In other words, the purport of Rule 59 is that the date of birth of a scholar ?s entered in the records of a recognised institution shall not be varied or deviated from when the student or the scholar is seeking admission in another recognised institution. This view point is strengthened if Rules 58 and 59 are read together. In other words, the purport of Rule 59 is that the date of birth of a scholar ?s entered in the records of a recognised institution shall not be varied or deviated from when the student or the scholar is seeking admission in another recognised institution. This view point is strengthened if Rules 58 and 59 are read together. Rule 58 enjoins that no recognised school shall admit a scholar without the transfer certificate from the last school which he attended. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in the transfer certificate there is a distinct entry of the date of birth of the scholar. This entry has been made sacrosanct in Rule 59. 7. In the instant case, there would have been no difficulty at all if it could be held that the Bal Bharti School was, at the relevant time, a recognised institution. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said school was a recognised institution. The college too did not consider Bal Bbarti School to be a recognised institution. Had it considered it to be so, it would have accepted the entry of the date of birth as contained in the transfer "certificate issued by the said school and would not have insisted upon the affirmation on an affidavit by the parent of the petitioner. Therefore, for the purposes of Rule 59, the petitioner was admitted for the first time to a recognised institution when he was admitted in the college. That was his original admission within the framework of Rule 59. 8. A rigid interpretation of Rule 59 may not only result in an anomalous situation but may also cause irreparable damage or harm to a scholar. His parent or guardian may not have intended to give a declaration of the date of birth. He may have used an ambiguous language, He may have committed a clerical mistake or an error may have crept in on account of an accidental slip or omission. He may have given out a certain age on account of an in advertence or failure of memory. There may be other genuine reasons for giving an incorrect declaration of age. He may have used an ambiguous language, He may have committed a clerical mistake or an error may have crept in on account of an accidental slip or omission. He may have given out a certain age on account of an in advertence or failure of memory. There may be other genuine reasons for giving an incorrect declaration of age. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the Principal as well as the Inspector patently erred in taking the view that on account of the language used in Rule 59 the application made by and on behalf of the petitioner to effect a change in the date of his birth could not be entertained and considered at all on merit. A combined reading of Rules 58 and 59 shows that the power to entertain an application for the correction of age resides in the head of the institution concerned. The Inspector does not come into the picture at all at the initial stage. It may be that a parent or guardian, who feels dissatisfied with the decision of the head of the institution, may be entitled to approach the Inspector at the administrative level. However, I am not giving any concluded opinion on this aspect of the matter. For the purposes of the present case it is enough to hold that the head of the institution concerned has the inherent or implied power to rectify a genuine mistake with respect to the declaration of the date of birth of a particular scholar. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Inspector are quashed. The Principal of the College/School is directed to entertain the application given by the parent of the petitioner for the correction of the date of birth and to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.