Sulochana Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 658 Chatt

                                       -1-


                                                                                AFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                         Writ Petition (C) No. 706 of 2022

   1. Sulochana Sharma D/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 39 Years R/o
      House No. 235, Shitla Para, Village Pakhanjur, Police Station Pakhanjur,
      Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of School
      Education, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   2. The Secretary Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   3. The Principal Satya Sai Baba High School Pakhanjur, Village Pakhanjur,
      Police Station Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.

      For Respondent No.2         :      Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate.

                     Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                              Order on Board

08.02.2022

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 25.11.2021

passed by the respondent No.2. Vide the impugned order, the respondent

No.2 has rejected the request of the petitioner for correction of the date of

birth in the marksheet of the petitioner. The rejection has been on the

ground of delay.

2. The facts of the case is that, the petitioner cleared her high school

examination in August, 2001. In the said certificate issued her date of birth

has been mentioned as 03.05.1980. According to the petitioner, her actual

date of birth infact is 03.05.1982. The petitioner has recently realized the

mistake and have made a request to the respondents to consider

correction of the date of birth in the school certificates from 03.05.1980 to

03.05.1982. The counsel for the petitioner submits that subject to the

respondents verifying it from the records available with the school

authorities themselves, the date of birth may be corrected enabling the

petitioner to have the rectified marksheet. The counsel for the petitioner

also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jigya

Yadav (minor) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others,

2021(7)SCC 535.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition

submits that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in

approaching the respondent authorities for correction of her date of birth. It

is the further contention of the respondents that no plausible explanation

has been provided by the petitioner which prevented her from approaching

the authorities for correction of her date of birth earlier. The counsel for the

respondents further contended that under the bylaws and the instructions

issued by the respondent No.2, it is not that there is no remedy available

to the petitioner, however, at the appropriate time the remedy was not

availed by the petitioner and therefore at this belated stage the same

cannot be permitted to be entertained or else there can be a floodgate of

such request from all corners.

4. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of

records, if the contention of the petitioner is to be believed, in 2001 she

had cleared high school examination as would be evident from Annexure

P/3. Though the further informations are not available, but the counsel for

the petitioner submits that she had done her graduation also. If that be so,

if the petitioner has cleared 10 th examination in 2001, she must have

cleared 12th examination in 2003 and must have also done her graduation

in 2006. Both, for her class 12 th and for degree course, the petitioner must

have filled her date of birth for getting admission stating it to be

03.05.1980. If the petitioner was aware of the fact that the date of birth

reflected in the marksheet issued in 2001 was incorrect, they could have

easily approached the authorities at that point of time itself for correction of

date of birth. Even after 2006 since that is the time it is presumed that the

petitioner must have done her graduation, thereafter also there is an

unexplained inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching

the respondents for correction of the date of birth.

5. The Supreme Court in case of Jigya Yadav (Supra) itself has opined very

clearly that not entertaining a request for correction of date of birth and

providing a reasonable period of time within which the correction is

permissible are entirely two different things. Not entertaining an application

at the outset would be unreasonable and bad in law, and not entertaining

an application beyond the period prescribed cannot be said to be arbitrary.

According to Supreme Court, there is a mass distinction between total

prohibition from correction and a reasonable restraint in approaching the

respondents for correction. While the former may be illegal, the latter

cannot be said to be illegal as reasonable restraint is permissible to strike

a proper balance between a student's right for correction of an error and

the respondents claim of administrative efficiency and feasibility.

6. In the instant case also the bare perusal of the pleadings itself would show

that the petitioner had cleared her high school examination in August,

2001 and the request for correction of the date of birth seems to have

been made only in July, 2021 i.e. almost after 20 years. 20 years period is

a pretty long time for anybody to approach the competent authority and 20

years time cannot under any stretch of imagination be termed to be a

reasonable period of time. Moreover, during this 20 years period the

petitioner had multiple occasions for verifying the date of birth that was

entered in the marksheet of her high school and therefore it cannot be said

that the petitioner was not aware of the date of birth in the school records,

particularly the high school certificate.

7. The fact that the respondent No.2-establishment has a guideline which

provides for a mechanism for correction of the date of birth and the

guidelines also provide for a period within which the date of birth can be

sought to be corrected. The guidelines speak of three years time within

which a person can approach the authorities for correction of date of birth.

In the instant case, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.2

after a gap of 20 years with practically no explanation whatsoever as to

why she did not move an application earlier or what prevented her from

moving an appropriate application earlier. Under the circumstances, the

impugned order passed by the respondents cannot be termed to be bad in

law or arbitrary in any manner.

8. The view of this court stands fortified by a decision of this High Court in

2009(3)CGLJ 103, Sudhir Ram Bhagat Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik Siksha

Mandal & Another.

9. In view of the same, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be

and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

inder