Chattisgarh High Court
Bhani Pujari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:45632
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4078 of 2025
1 - Bhani Pujari D/o Shri Ram Krishna Pujari Aged About 52 Years R/o
C/o- Renuka Rao Gandhi Nagar, Sukma District- Sukma, C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School
Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
C.G.
2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Pension
Bada, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
3 - Deputy Secretary Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education
Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL
For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Ms. Shriyadeep Gupta, Advocate on behalf
of Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.09.09
14:31:51 +0530
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
08/09/2025
By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate
direction to the respondent-Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education
for correction of the date of birth insofar as the high school examination
certificate-cum-marksheet of the petitioner was issued by the
respondent Board in the year 2023 wherein the date of birth of the
petitioner has been mentioned as 07.01.2001 instead of 01.07.1973 and
her name has been mentioned as Bhani Purjari instead of Bhani Pujari.
2. Contention of the counsel for the respondent/Board of Secondary
Education, opposed the petition and submits that the relief sought by the
petitioner is directly hit by the express bar contained in the rules,
regulations and resolutions governing the Chhatisgarh Board of
Secondary Education. The petitioner's claim for correcting in the name
and date of birth has been made beyond the prescribed limitation period
of three years and therefore no relief can be granted under the
discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
3. He further submits that the Board derives its statutory authority
from the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965 which
continues to govern the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education.
Section 19 read with Section 24 of the Adhiniyam expressly vests power
in the Executive and Finance committee to frame orders, resolutions
and guidelines to regulate the process of amendments and corrections
in mark sheets and certificates issued by the Board. In pursuance of the
aforesaid statutory powers, the Executive and Finance Committee of the
Appellant Board in its joint meeting dated 28.02.2022 resolved to adopt
a standardized legally enforceable procedure for entertaining
applications for correction of name/surname and date of birth in
academic records. After due deliberation, it has laid down clear
conditions and a time bound mechanism stipulating that nay application
of correction of name/surname and date of birth must be filed within a
period of three years from the date of declaration of result. Beyond this
time frame, the Board is divested of nay authority to entertain or grant
such applications.
4. It is submitted that in the instant case, the result of the petitioner
was declared in March 2020. However, the petitioner approached the
Board only on 13.08.2024 after a lapse of more than four years and thus
the claim of the petitioner ex facie is barred by limitation. She submits
that the principle of limitation and finality has also been recognized in
several judgments of the Apex Court including Union of India Vs.
M.K.Sarkar (2010) 2 SC 59 and State of UP V. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 wherein the Apex Court has consistently
held that elated claims cannot be entertained as a matter of right,
particularly when statutory rules prescribe a time limit for seeking
redressal.
5. Counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that in an
identical petition ie WPC No. 410 of 2023, this Court has directed the
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in light of various
pronouncements of the Apex Court. He further submits that the case of
the present petitioner may also be considered in the light of the above
petition which has been decided by directing the respondent/Board of
Secondary Education to consider the case of the petitioner ignoring the
delay part.
6. Having heard contentions of the parties, it is directed that the
respondent Board shall consider the application of the petitioner for
correction of date of birth in her high school examination certificate-cum-
marksheet and pass appropriate orders ignoring the delay part subject
to verification of all the documents.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on
merits of the case and the authority concerned would decide the
representation strictly in accordance with law.
8. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
