ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, by which claim of the petitioner has been turned down for correction in the date of birth. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was born on 21.9.2001 at Dr. Gauri Devi Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home, 113, Jawahar Marg, Indore and a certificate to that effect is on record. The birth of the child was reported to Indore Municipal Corporation on 23.11.2001 and subsequently birth certificate was issued which is on record and same reveals that date of birth of the petitioner is 21.9.2001 and the child was born at Dr. Gauri Devi Maternity Home. The child in question who was minor was admitted in a school i.e. Vivekanand Vidhya Vihar and the form which was submitted for admission to the school is on record as Annx. P-11. The date of birth mentioned by the parents is 21.9.2001. The another important aspect of the case is that the birth certificate which was issued by the Hospital contains the name of mother and father of the child as Lalita and Pankaj. The same finds place in the birth certificate also issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation. The child was later on transferred to another school i.e. ILVA H.S.S. and a transfer certificate was issued by Vivekanand Vidhya Vihar on 18.6.2004 and in the aforesaid certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 21.9.2004. This mistake is continuing till date. Even the ILVA H.S.S. has clarified the issue and informed the Central Board of Secondary Education Regional Office but the fact remains that date of birth has not been corrected. Annexure P-3 which is the certificate issued by Indore Municipal Corporation is nothing but a certificate issued under section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 8/13 of the M.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. In the present case the birth has taken place on 21.9.2001. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents have taken shelter of Examination Bye-Laws of Central Board of Secondary Education whereunder Rule 69.2 provides that 'No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made'. In the present case the birth has taken place on 21.9.2001. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents have taken shelter of Examination Bye-Laws of Central Board of Secondary Education whereunder Rule 69.2 provides that 'No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made'. The said rule is applicable when the desired Date of Birth is not found consistent with the school records. 4. The contention of respondents is that as per the Bye Laws, they cannot change the date of birth at this stage and appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file a civil suit. This Court has carefully gone through Rule 69.2 and 69.3 of the aforesaid Bye-Laws. Rule 69.3 of the aforesaid ByeLaws provides that - 'The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of school along with documents mentioned in bye laws 69.3 (iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within five ears of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of five year. The rule is applicable when the desired DOB is mentioned in the school record, but due to typographical error DOB is wrongly mentioned by the Board in the Certificate. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid ByeLaws and the fact is that this is the second visit of the petitioner before this Court. Earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition and same was registered as Writ Petition No. 25624/2018. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court has passed the following order : Writ Petition No. 25624/2018 31.10.2018 Mr. Abhishek Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents for correction of Date of Birth wrongly mentioned in the mark-sheet of Class 10th. According to the petitioner, his correct Date of Birth is 21.9.2001 and by mistake the same has been mentioned as 21.9.2004 in the mark-sheet of Class-10th issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The Principal, ILVA, Higher Secondary School has already certified that in the form sent to the Board correct Date of Birth of petitioner i.e. 21.9.2001 was written. The Principal, ILVA, Higher Secondary School has already certified that in the form sent to the Board correct Date of Birth of petitioner i.e. 21.9.2001 was written. The petitioner has submitted the representation dated 16.10.2018 but the same has not been decided so far. Prima-facie the application submitted by the applicant for correction is within time, as prescribed under Regulation. Hence, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to take final decision in respect of correct Date of Birth of petitioner in the mark-sheet of Class-10th. The entire exercise be completed within forty five days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of." 6. As directed by this Court, the Central Board of Secondary Education has passed an order on 27.11.2018 and has rejected the contention of the petitioner again taking shelter of Rule 69.2 and 69.3 of the Examination Bye-Laws and also by stating that record of the school has not been received by them. 7. The moot question before this Court is whether the child in question was born on 21.9.2001 or on 21.9.2004. The Central Board of Secondary Education has not disputed the documents brought on record and neither the school, a party to the present petition, has disputed the documents filed by the petitioner. The certificate issued by the hospital is on record as Annx.P-1 and the name of mother and father finds place as Lalita W/o Pankaj, meaning thereby father's and mother's name is on the certificate and date of the birth of the petitioner is 21.9.2001 (at 2.00 p.m.). The same description finds place in the birth certificate which is also on record. The birth certificate reveals that birth of the child was reported on 23.11.2001. This is not a case where the birth was reported in the year 2017 when the birth certificate was issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation. 8. Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for Indore Municipal Corporation is directed to bring the original record relating to date of birth of the petitioner today itself and make a categorical statement about the entries reflected in the birth certificate. 9. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel has informed this Court that the entries are authentic. The birth of the child was reported on 23.11.2001. 9. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel has informed this Court that the entries are authentic. The birth of the child was reported on 23.11.2001. He has also produced the original record and the same reflects that the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.9.2001. 10. Another important aspect of the case is that all the births are reported by the Hospital on the same day to the Municipal Corporation and even the birth of the present petitioner might have been reported to the Indore Municipal Corporation on the same day, however the date of registration is 23.11.2001. The fact remains that in the year 2001 itself the birth of the child was reported by the Hospital to the Indore Municipal Corporation. The birth certificate provides a QR Code as well as digital signature. 11. Section 35 and section 90A of the Indian Evidence Act read as under : S.35 - Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty.-An entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or record or an electronic record is kept, is itself a relevant fact. S.90A - Presumption as to documents thirty years old- Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. 12. 12. Learned Senior Counsel keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision has placed reliance upon a judgment in the matter of Cidco v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, (2009) 7 SCC 283 , wherein Hon. apex Court has dealt with the date of birth issue and held that entry in Municipal Birth and Deaths Register, the certificate issued by predecessor of municipality i.e. Gram Panchayat, shall prevail over entry in school register and held that the certificate issued by municipality could not be discarded on the ground that employee's birth took place prior to creation of municipality. Paras 17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : 17. If an allegation is made that a lower grade employee was responsible for withholding the said document from the higher authorities, proof therefor was necessary. It is wholly unlikely that the seniority lists of the officers which are prepared by the higher authorities would contain lists of the officers as purported to have been committed by the lower authorities. The appellant prima facie is bound by its own records. If any fraud is alleged, it must be proved. Only because there appears to be a so-called interpolation, the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that the respondent had supplied a wrong date of birth. 18. The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardina of the respondent. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, there is no reason to dispute the entries made in the public record, especially when Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned standing counsel for Indore Municipal Corporation has verified the same at the request of this Court. The problem arose in the present case only when the child was first admitted in Vivekanand Vidhya Vihar. The application form is also on record dated 3.7.2007. Thereafter he took transfer to ILVA H.S.S. and a transfer certificate was issued to him, in which date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 21.9.2004 instead of 21.9.2001 and based upon the transfer certificate, the ILVA H.S.S. recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.9.2004. The application form is also on record dated 3.7.2007. Thereafter he took transfer to ILVA H.S.S. and a transfer certificate was issued to him, in which date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 21.9.2004 instead of 21.9.2001 and based upon the transfer certificate, the ILVA H.S.S. recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.9.2004. However, after verifying the record, the ILVA H.S.S. also made a request to Regional Office, Central Board of Secondary Education to correct the date of birth in their record as 21.9.2001. The same has not been accepted by the Central Board of Secondary Education taking shelter of the Examination By-Laws. 14. This is not a case where the child is trying to decrease his age span. The child who was born in the year 2001 as is reflected from the birth certificate issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation, only wants correction in the date of birth. This Court has observed various instances where at the fag end of retirement, aggrieved person(s) come with a plea that their date of birth has been wrongly entered in the service record only with an object to enable them to continue in service for a longer period. However, the present case is distinguishable and the correction sought is based upon the cogent material and evidence produced before this Court. 15. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the date of birth of the petitioner deserves to be corrected by the Central Board of Secondary Education in all their official records and it is accordingly ordered. The Central Board of Secondary Education is directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 21.9.2004 to 21.9.2001 within a period of 3 days from today as the child has to appear in the NEET examination and last date for correction in the Online NEET examination form is 31.1.2020. Needless to mention that the child will be permitted to appear in the NEET examination treating his date of birth as 21.9.2001. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. ...................