JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a student of National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 11.06.2018 under Annexure-11 rejecting his application for correction of date of birth. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was prosecuting his study at M.R. Boys' High School, Parlakhemundi as a regular student. He appeared H.S.C. Examination in the year 2010 under the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and became unsuccessful. Consequentially, he left the said school and was issued with transfer certificate (T.C.) bearing No. 1286501 dated 18.10.2010, along with Enrollment Card (E.C.) bearing No. DAM001/230/08 vide Annexures-1 and 2 respectively issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as "08.03.1994". On receipt of such certificate, the petitioner took admission at National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), which is an autonomous Institution under the Ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD) Department, Government of India, having its regional centre and accredited institutes all over India. 2.1. The petitioner took admission in Sri Lakshmi Gangapathi Degree College, Dharmapuri, Vizianagaram, which is affiliated to Regional Centre at Vishakapatham under NIOS, by producing the transfer certificate and the enrollment card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. He appeared the H.S.C. Examination under Regional Center at Vishakhapatnam in the month of April, 2012 bearing Roll No. 932711200322 and became successful. After he became successful in the H.S.C. examination, he went to the Regional Centre, Vishakhapatnam on 15.08.2012 to obtain certificate from the authority. The provisional certificate, mark sheet and the migration-cum-transfer certificate were issued to the petitioner by the Director, NIOS Evaluation. After receipt of the same, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth in the certificate has been mentioned incorrectly as "18.03.1974", though his actual date of birth is "18.03.1994". 2.2. The petitioner immediately on 27.08.2012 applied to the authority in the format provided for the purpose of correction of certificate and also deposited Rs. 500/- in the form of bank draft on 29.08.2012, along with an affidavit, seeking correction of the wrong entry of the date of birth in the aforesaid certificates on the basis of the transfer certificate and enrolment card issued by the B.S.E., Orissa, but no action was taken by the opposite parties. 500/- in the form of bank draft on 29.08.2012, along with an affidavit, seeking correction of the wrong entry of the date of birth in the aforesaid certificates on the basis of the transfer certificate and enrolment card issued by the B.S.E., Orissa, but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Consequentially, father of the petitioner, on 18.10.2012 submitted representation to the authority with a request to treat the matter as urgent and issue correct certificate immediately as his son has joined in ITI at Vishyakarma Industrial Training Centre, Berhampur with an undertaking to submit the corrected certificate in proof of his date of birth after issuance of the same by the authority under NOIS. In spite of such request being made, no action was taken. Subsequently, father of the petitioner again on 26.11.2012, 08.02.2013 and by making email correspondence on 08.01.2014 requested the Secretary and Director of Evaluation, NOIS, but all efforts gone in vain. 2.3. Due to non-grant of corrected certificate, the petitioner could not appear the examination of ITI. Consequentially, petitioner issued notice to the opposite party authorities through his advocate on 25.01.2016. Since no response came from the opposite parties, finding no other alternative, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 6831 of 2018, which was disposed of on 27.04.2018 directing opposite party no. 2 to take a decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the impugned order in Annexure-11 dated 11.06.2018 was passed, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the NIOS does not permit for change in date of birth of learners and further provides that no change in the date of birth once recorded in the NIOS records shall be made. However, corrections to rectify the genuine typographical errors/ factual errors can be made. Application for correction in date of birth can be considered within three years from the date of registration in NIOS, but prior to appearing in the first examination, hence the case of the petitioner was badly barred by the limitation. It is also further mentioned that the petitioner has furnished the particulars at the time of admission in admission form which was kept by the Board (NIOS) for certification purpose and the certificate was issued to the petitioner on 12.06.2012. It is also further mentioned that the petitioner has furnished the particulars at the time of admission in admission form which was kept by the Board (NIOS) for certification purpose and the certificate was issued to the petitioner on 12.06.2012. Thereby, due to the above reasons, no change in the date of birth can be considered at the late stage and the matter stands disposed of. Hence this application. 3. Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of admission, the petitioner had produced the transfer certificate annexed as Annexure-1 and also the enrollment card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which is annexed as Annexure-2, wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as "08.03.1994". But, when the petitioner passed the annual examination conducted by the NIOS, he was issued with provisional certificate, marks statement and migration-cum-transfer certificate, wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as "08.03.1974". It is contended that there may be some typographical error indicating the date of birth as "08.03.1974" in place of "08.03.1994". Therefore, as required under law, the petitioner applied in prescribed proforma for correction in the admission record, vide Annexure-4 series by depositing the requisites fees. Though the same was duly acknowledged, but not acted upon in spite of the several requests made by the petitioner and his father. Subsequently, in compliance of the direction given by this Court, vide order dated 27.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6831 of 2018, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the plea of barred by limitation as three years period prescribed for correction of date of birth was already over. It is contended that the same is purely non-application of mind. As it reveals from the application submitted for correction, the same was produced on 27.08.2012 under Annexure-4 series, which is well within the time specified. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot have any justification, particularly when the same contradicts the record itself. Thereby, the petitioner seeks for quashing of letter dated 11.06.2018 in Annexure-11 and prays for correction of date of birth. It is further contended that valuable time of the petitioner was lost due to callous attitude of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 by not correcting the date of birth, which are based on record. 4. Mr. T.N. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. It is further contended that valuable time of the petitioner was lost due to callous attitude of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 by not correcting the date of birth, which are based on record. 4. Mr. T.N. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 contended that the NIOS has framed rules, regulations and guidelines for effecting corrections/changes in the admission records. Clause-3.3(i) and (ii) stipulates that application for correction of date of birth to be considered within a period of three years from the date of registration in NIOS, but prior to appearing in the 1st examination, and no change in the date of birth once recorded in the NIOS records shall be made. However, corrections to rectify the genuine typographical errors/factual errors can be made. Thereby, it is contended that since the petitioner has not approached the authority concerned within a period of three years of issuance of certificate, the same cannot be corrected and the order impugned passed by the authority, in compliance of order dated 24.07.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6831 of 2018, is well justified. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by passing the order impugned so as to cause interference of this Court. 5. Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.K. Behera, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 endorsed the contention raised by Mr. T.N. Pattanayak, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2, and justifies the action taken by the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 by way of filing counter affidavit. 6. This Court heard Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. T.N. Pattanayak, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2; and Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3; and perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. T.N. Pattanayak, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2; and Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3; and perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. Before delving into the legality and propriety of the communication dated 11.06.2018 under Annexure-11, which has been sought to be quashed, it is apt to have a glance through clause 4.11 of the prospectus issued by the NIOS for the academic Session 2011-12, the extract of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, relying on which prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the certificates has been denied by the NIOS. Clause-4.11, which provides procedure for correction in the admission records, reads thus: "4.11 Procedure for correction in the Admission records. The admission to a particular course is normally confirmed by NIOS by issuing an Identity Card having details of learner's admission particulars as per the record available in NIOS. In case of any discrepancy in "Name" or "Father's Name" or "Date of Birth" or "Address" or "Photo" etc., please apply for correction at your study centre of the concerned Regional Centre along with the documentary proof. In case if you notice the discrepancy after your result has been declared and you have been issued the passing documents (Marksheet, Migration or Provisional Certificates) please apply within a month for correction at your study centre or at the concerned Regional Centre along with the documentary proof and the documents (Marksheet, Migration or Provisional Certificate or finally certificate) with incorrect details issued by NIOS. Please note that the revised corrected documents will be issued only if you have submitted the documents (Marksheet, Migration or Provisional Certificate or finally certificate) with incorrect details issued by NIOS." On perusal of the above, it is evident that in case any discrepancy is noticed after declaration of the result in passing documents issued by the authority, i.e. mark-sheet, migration or provisional certificates, the candidate has to apply to the authority within a month for correction at the study centre or at the concerned regional centre, along with the documentary proof and the documents (mark-sheet, migration or provisional certificates or finally certificate) with incorrect details issued by the NIOS. 8. Admittedly, the provisional certificate, marks statement and migration-cum-transfer certificate dated 12.06.2012 were supplied to the petitioner on 15.08.2012. On receipt of the same, the petitioner found error in the date of birth, which was recorded as "18.03.1974" in place of "18.03.1994". Therefore, vide Annexure-4 series, he applied to the authority on 27.08.2012 in the proforma prescribed for the purpose of correction of certificate by depositing requisite fees of Rs. 500/- in the shape of bank draft dated 29.08.2012, along with an affidavit seeking for correction of wrong entry of the date of birth in the said certificates. Thereby, the petitioner has submitted his application, along with documentary proof, within one month period for correction of his date of birth in the certificates issued by NIOS. 9. Mr. T.N. Pattnayak, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 submitted that NIOS issued Rules Regulations and Guidelines for effecting corrections/changes in the admission records of NIOS, which were approved in 14th meeting of Academic Council held on 24.05.2013 and 65th meeting of Executive Board held on 17.10.2013. Clause-3.3 thereof, which is relevant for just adjudication of the case, is quoted below: "3.3 CORRECTION IN THE DATE OF BIRTH OF LEARNER (i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the NIOS records shall be made. However, correction to rectify the genuine typographical error/factual errors can be made. (ii) Application for correction in date of birth can be considered within three years from the date of registration in NIOS but prior to appearing in the first examination. (iii) Correction in the Date of Birth of a candidate in case of a genuine clerical error(s) will be made with the approval of Director (SSS) if it is established to the satisfaction that wrong entry was made in the Admission Form of the candidate. (iv) The Application for correction in the date of birth should be submitted to the concerned Regional Centre of NIOS along with the following documents:- (a) Attested copy of the admission form of the Candidate. (b) Attested copy of Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Authority or the District Office of the Registrar of Births and Deaths. (c) SLC/TC/indicating the Date of Birth of the Candidate issued by the last formal School attended by the applicant. In case of Govt. School, SLC/TC should be signed by the Principal concerned. (b) Attested copy of Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Authority or the District Office of the Registrar of Births and Deaths. (c) SLC/TC/indicating the Date of Birth of the Candidate issued by the last formal School attended by the applicant. In case of Govt. School, SLC/TC should be signed by the Principal concerned. In case of Private School, it should be countersigned by the Competent Authority of State's Education Department or by the District Education Officer. (d) In case of orphan/juvenile/Street Children the Medical-Legal Certificate be provided as proof of Date of Birth. (e) Attested photocopies of any other official documents such as Passport, voter I-Card, Aadhar Card etc. Old incorrect documents (certificate/mark sheet/registration card) in original issued by NIOS. (f) Payment of prescribed fee of Rs. 100/-." On perusal of the above provisions, it is made clear that no change in the date of birth once recorded in the NIOS records shall be made. However, correction to rectify the genuine typographical error/factual error can be made. Correction in the date of birth of a candidate in case of a genuine clerical error will be made with the approval of Director (SSS), if it is established to the satisfaction that wrong entry was made in the admission form of the candidate. The application for correction in the date of birth should be submitted to the concerned regional centre of NIOS along with the documents mentioned therein under clause (a) to (e) on payment of prescribed fee. It is not in dispute that the petitioner produced the certificates issued by the Board of Secondary Education under Annexures-1 and 2 to get admission into NIOS. The date of birth was mentioned therein as 08.03.1994. But, while issuing certificates vide Annexure-3 series, the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, wrongly mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner as "08.03.1974" in place of "08.03.1994". Thereby, a typographical mistake has been occurred, as because only digit 7' has been mentioned in place of digit 9', and to justify that mistake crept in the certificates issued by opposite parties no. 1 and 2, vide Annexure-3 series, the petitioner has followed all the principles by making application on 27.08.2012 vide Annexure-4 series. The petitioner specifically pleaded in paragraph-6 of the application as follows: "6. 1 and 2, vide Annexure-3 series, the petitioner has followed all the principles by making application on 27.08.2012 vide Annexure-4 series. The petitioner specifically pleaded in paragraph-6 of the application as follows: "6. That the Petitioner having come to know about the aforesaid defect in the certificate, immediately on 27.08.2012 applied to the authority in the format provided for the purpose of correction of certificate and also deposited Rs. 500/- in the form the bank draft on 29.08.2012 alongwith an affidavit, seeking correction of the wrong entry of the date of birth mentioned in the aforesaid certificate specially mentioning in the application that his correct date of birth is 8.3.1994 and the same should be corrected by verifying the transfer certificate and the enrollment card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. The copy of the application dtd. 27.8.2012, the copy of the bank draft dtd. 29.8.2012 and the necessary affidavit dt. 29.8.2012 submitted by the Petitioner seeking correction of the date of birth are annexed herewith as Annexure- 4 series." 10. In view of the aforesaid assertion made in paragraph-6, to which there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no. 1 and 2, it can safely be construed that the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have admitted the contention raised in paragraph-6 itself. Since petitioner has applied to the authority on 27.08.2012 in the format prescribed for the purpose of correction of certificates by depositing the requisite fees of Rs. 500/- in the shape of bank draft on 29.08.2012, if there is no specific denial to that extent and, as such, the same is admitted, there is no valid and justifiable reason not to carry out the typographical error crept in the certificates issued by the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 in Annexure-3 series, so far as date of birth is concerned. 11. Furthermore, in the transfer certificate and enrollment card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which have been filed as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as "08.03.1994". Those Annexures-1 and 2 were very much produced by the petitioner at the time of admission to the NIOS. Therefore, the above mistake/error must have committed at the level of opposite parties no. 1 and 2, while entering the date of birth of the petitioner in their admission record. Those Annexures-1 and 2 were very much produced by the petitioner at the time of admission to the NIOS. Therefore, the above mistake/error must have committed at the level of opposite parties no. 1 and 2, while entering the date of birth of the petitioner in their admission record. Subsequently, when the certificates were issued to the petitioner in Annexure-3 series mentioning his date of birth as "08.03.1974", instead of "08.03.1994", the petitioner submitted an application for correction vide Annexure-4 series. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth, which is in the nature of a typographical error, should not have been rejected by passing impugned order dated 11.06.2018 in Annexure-11 taking a flimsy ground that such an application can be considered within three years from the date of registration in NIOS, but prior to appearing in the first examination. 12. More so, as per clause-3.3(i), the correction to rectify the genuine typographical error/factual errors can be made. "Error" means something incorrectly done though ignorance or inadvertence. In Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., "error" means a psychological state that does not confirm to objective reality; a belief that what is false or that what is true is false. In Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 420 , the apex Court held that error means a mistake in judgment/assessment in a process or proceeding; some wrong decision taken inadvertently; unintentional mistake; something incorrectly done through ignorance or inadvertence; mistake occurred from an accidental slip; deviation from standard or course of right or accuracy, unintentionally; to be wrong about; to think or understand wrongly; an omission made not by design, but by mischance. As such, in view of above, the petitioner had applied for correction of error vide Annexure-4 series within three years period, but, due to inaction of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, he has been made to suffer. 13. For all the above reasons, the order dated 11.06.2018 in Annexure-11 refusing to make correction of typographical error of the date of birth of the petitioner, having been passed on flimsy grounds and without application of mind, cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The opposite parties no. 13. For all the above reasons, the order dated 11.06.2018 in Annexure-11 refusing to make correction of typographical error of the date of birth of the petitioner, having been passed on flimsy grounds and without application of mind, cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are directed to make correction of typographical error of date of birth of the petitioner in their admission record and the certificates issued to the petitioner in Annexure-3 series as "08.03.1994" in place of "08.03.1974", as has been entered in transfer certificate and enrollment card issued by Board of Secondary Education, Orissa in Annexues-1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this judgment. 14. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. No order to costs.