Chattisgarh High Court
Priyami Das vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 9 December, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3736 of 2022
Priyami Das D/o Shri Bikash Chandra Das Aged About 19 Years R/o Flat No.
107, Om Garden Parijat Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur-495001, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Board Of Secondary Education (Cbse) Through Its Chairman, Central
Board Of Secondary Education, Head Quarters, Shiksha Kendra-2, Community
Centre, Preet Vihar Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi
2. The Controller Of Examinations Central Baord Of Secondary Education Head
Quarters, Shiksha Kendra- 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi, District :
New Delhi, Delhi
3. The Secretary, Central Board Of Secondary Education Regional Office, Plot No.
4 (Pt.), Sailashree Vihar, Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneshwar, District Khurda
Odisha, District : Khordha *, Orissa
4. The Assistant Secretary (M And M) Central Board Of Secondary Education
Regional Office, Plot No. 4 (Pt), Sailashree Vihar, Chandrashekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, District Khurda, Odisha., District : Khordha *, Orissa
5. St. Francis Higher Secondary School, Through The Principal St. Francis Higher
Secondary School, Ameri Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate
For Res. No.1 to 4 : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate
For Res. No.5 : Ms. Veena Nair, Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
09/12/2022
1. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be the error that has crept in the date
of birth in the school certificate.
2. According to the petitioner, his actual date of birth is 24.06.2003, whereas
inadvertently in the school certificate the date has been reflected as 23.06.2003
i.e. the difference of one day so far as date of birth is concerned.
3. The petitioner has been making repeated approach to the respondents for
rectification of the same and finally respondent no.5 again have issued letters
recommending correction of date of birth of the petitioner vide Annexure P-6
dated 06.08.2019 and Annexure P-7 dated 03.03.2020. In both these
applications, it is reflected that they have also enclosed certificates to support
the recommendations made by respondent no.5 school.
4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 to 4 CBSE submits that though the recommendations vide Annexure P-6
& Annexure P-7 is said to have been made by the respondent no.5 School but
the same does not seem to have reached to the office of CBSE. Neither, the
CBSE had the enclosure attached to those recommendation by the school
Authorities been received by them.
5. Mr. T. K. Tiwari further submits that subject to the petitioner respondent no.5
forwarding a fresh recommendation supported with all relevant documents as is
reflected Annexure P-7 dated 03.03.2020 at the earliest, the Board shall be able
to take an appropriate decision at the earliest keeping in view the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav Vs. CBSE
(Central Board of Secondary Education) and Ors., reported in
(2021) 7 SSC 535.
6. Given the limited grievance that petitioner has and the role that has to be played
by the respondents, particularly taking into consideration the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav(Supra), this Court is of the opinion
that the whole dispute and grievance of the petitioner can be redressed if writ
petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the respondent no.5 to make a
fresh recommendation to respondent no.1 to 4 within a period of 15 days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order supported with all relevant enclosures
that they have enclosed earlier also. Upon receipt of the said recommendation,
the respondent no.1 to 4 are further directed to immediately scrutinize the same
in accordance with the procedure applicable in the department and to take a
decision for rectification of the date of birth so far as petitioner is concerned
within a further period of preferably 45 days.
7. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed
of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
