Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 491 (MP)

Ku. Priya Sharma (Minor) v. Union of India

2014-04-30

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
Judgment: The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction for the Central Board of Secondary Education (Board)/respondent No. 2 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the record/mark sheet as 22.7.1997 in lieu of 22.7.1998. The letter dated 3.11.2012 by which application of petitioner is rejected is also called in question. 2. Shri Vishal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court on Annexure P-3 (progress report) submits that the petitioner's date of birth is 22.1.1997. The same is reflected in the affidavit Annexure P-6 and the statutory birth certificate (Annexure P-7). The respondents have erred in rejecting the same. 3. Per contra, Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the Board drew the attention of this Court on the notification Annexure R-2/1. 4. By taking assistance of Clause 69.2(i), it is contended that corrections can be made to correct typographical error and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records. 5. The school certificate issued by the Board (Annexure P-2) contains the same date of birth i.e., 20.7.1998 and, therefore, it is neither a typographical mistake, nor can be treated as mistake in terms of Clause 69.2(i) which can be corrected. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Clause 69.2(i) reads as under:- “69.2(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.” (emphasis supplied) 6. In this case, the certificate issued by Divisional Board (Annexure P-2) shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.7.1998, whereas the progress report (Annexure P-3) contains the date as 22.1.1997. The date of birth certificate is issued much after issuance of Annexure P-1 to P-3. Thus, this certificate is of no assistance to the petitioner. The Principal of petitioner's institution/St. Marry Senior Secondary School, Morena made a request to change the date of birth on the ground that parents want to change the date of birth. The core question is whether action of Bord in rejecting the prayer is justified? 7. Thus, this certificate is of no assistance to the petitioner. The Principal of petitioner's institution/St. Marry Senior Secondary School, Morena made a request to change the date of birth on the ground that parents want to change the date of birth. The core question is whether action of Bord in rejecting the prayer is justified? 7. The record shows that the Board's certificate (Annexure P-2) contains one date (20.7.1998), whereas the progress report contains another date. The question is as per which certificate consistency needs to be maintained. In the opinion of this Court, if two sets of documents are available (certificate of Board and W.P.1873/13 progress report in this case), it is the certificate of Board which will prevail and which must be given preference. As per Board's certificate, petitioner's date of birth is same which is in Annexure P-1. Thus, the respondents-Board have maintained consistency with this Board certificate (Annexure P/2) and rightly rejected the prayer to alter the date of birth. I find no reason to interfere in this case. 8. Petition is merit-less and is hereby dismissed.