JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The writ Petitioner appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate (in short H.S.L.C.) Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam in the year 1986. For the purpose of enabling the Petitioner to sit in the aforesaid examination, an admit card was issued to him showing his date of birth 17.2.1967. After the examinations were over, the Petitioner approached the Board with a request to correct his date of birth as 14.2.1970 instead of 17.2.1967, as recorded in the Admit Card. The aforesaid correction was made under the signature of the Assistant Controller of Examinations with the date 16.6. (presumably year is 1986). However, in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board, the date of birth of the Petitioner was again shown 17.2.1967. The aforesaid certificate was received by the Petitioner on 7.10.1993. It is common knowledge; that at the relevant point of time the Board of Secondary Education used to take several years to issue the Matriculation Certificates. The Petitioner, thereafter, approached the Secretary of the Board with a representation dated 27.11.1993 for correction of his date of birth as recorded in the certificate issued by the Board. The Board responded by requiring the Petitioner to get a report in this regard from the Headmaster of the School as well as the Inspector of Schools. Accordingly, the Petitioner brought the matter to the attention of the Headmaster of the School as well as the Inspector of Schools and both the aforesaid authorities informed the Board that the date of birth of the Petitioner is 14.2.1970. The communications issued by the Head-master as well as the Inspector of Schools are available on record. Thereafter on 26.4.1996 the Respondent No. 4 issued a communication informing the Petitioner that his request for correction of his date of birth could not be considered by the Board as per Rules of the Board. Which particular Rule prohibited such consideration has, however, not been stated in the impugned order. A further request to the Board to take a different view of the matter not having been yielded any result, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Which particular Rule prohibited such consideration has, however, not been stated in the impugned order. A further request to the Board to take a different view of the matter not having been yielded any result, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by drawing the attention of the Court to the enclosures to the writ petition, particularly the Admit Card containing an endorsement of the Assistant Controller of Examinations to the effect that the Matriculation Certificate was handed over to the Petitioner on 9.10.1993; the communications addressed by the Headmaster and the Inspector of Schools to the Board to the effect that the date of birth of the Petitioner is 14.2.1970 as well as the Circular issued by the Board on 26.12.1990 providing for a time limit for correction of age, has submitted that the actions of the Board are neither legal nor in accordance with the provisions of the Rules governing correction of date of birth as spelt out in the Circular dated 26.12.1990. Sri Das, has submitted that there is ample material on record to show that the correct date of birth of the Petitioner is 14.2.1970. The reliance placed by the Board, if is understood to be on the basis of Circular dated 26.12.1990, is also incorrect as the Petitioner could notice the anomaly in his certificate regarding the date of birth only on 7.10.1993, immediately whereafter on 27.11.1993 the application was filed by him. On the aforesaid basis, Sri Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has prayed for interference of this Court and for appropriate directions. 4. The Board inspite of receipt of notice from the Court has not appeared and therefore the stand, if any, of the Board is net known. 5. In the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School in which the Petitioner was studying as also the communication of the Inspector of Schools in this regard, both of which were addressed to the authorities of the Board of Secondary Education, it has been clearly recited that the date of birth of the Petitioner as available in the school records is 14.2.1970. There can be no manner of doubt, therefore, that the Petitioner's date of birth, indeed, is what has been claimed. There can be no manner of doubt, therefore, that the Petitioner's date of birth, indeed, is what has been claimed. The refusal of the Board to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner, as evident from the impugned order dated 26.4.1996, is not on the ground that what has been claimed is incorrect. On the contrary, the refusal is for the reason that such correction is not permissible under the Rules. Which particular Rule prohibits such a correction has also not been stated. If this Court is to take that the Board had relied on its circular dated 26.12.1990 in refusing correction of the date of birth of the Petitioner, this Court must come to the conclusion that such reliance has been wholly misplaced. The date of birth of the Petitioner as recorded in the Admit Card was corrected in the year 1986 itself. The Petitioner, therefore, could have no occasion to believe that his date of birth as corrected to 14.2.1970 would not be reflected in his Matriculation Certificate. It is only on 7.10.1993 that the matriculation certificate was furnished to the Petitioner and it is for the first time, on the' said date, that the Petitioner could come to know that his date of birth has been recorded as 17.2.1967 and not 14.2.1970 in the Matriculation Certificate. Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed the representation for necessary correction on 27.11.1993. When the Board itself had handed over the Matriculation Certificate to the Petitioner on 7.10.1993, it is incomprehensible as to how a period of three years as mentioned in the Circular dated 26.12.1990 could have been relied upon by the Board to refuse correction of the date of birth of the Petitioner. The Petitioner having come to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Matriculation Certificate only on 7.10.1993 and the representation dated 27.11.1993 having been filed immediately thereafter, the Board was under an obligation to pass appropriate orders on the Petitioner's representation and effect necessary correction in the date of birth of the Petitioner as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that this writ petition should be allowed which I accordingly do. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that this writ petition should be allowed which I accordingly do. The impugned order dated 26.4.1996 passed by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (Annexure-I to the writ petition) shall stand set aside and the Board of Secondary Education, Assam is directed to appropriately correct the date of birth of the Petitioner in his Matriculation Certificate. Petition allowed