Chirag Jain vs Cbse & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2502 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    W.P.(C) No. 12595/2009


%                         Judgment delivered on: 10th May, 2011

Chirag Jain                              ...... Petitioner.

             Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and
                      Mr. Akshay Chandra, Advs.

                          versus

CBSE & Ors..                        ..... Respondents

                     Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may
      be allowed to see the judgment?       Yes

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?        Yes

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest?                      Yes

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral

*

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct

respondent to revoke the impugned entry pertaining to his

date of birth in the Class 10th pass certificate and Class 10th

Mark Sheet.

2. The brief facts of the case which have led to the

filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was born

on 18th May, 1991 in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and his

date of birth was duly registered with the NDMC on 17 th

June, 1991 as 18th May, 1991. The petitioner also stated that

he holds an Indian passport which was issued in his favour on

23rd May, 1997 for a period of 10 years and there also his

date of birth was recorded as 18th May, 1991. It is also stated

that the petitioner had joined Delhi Public School, R.K.Puram

in the year 2004 after he migrated from Ramjas School, Pusa

Road, New Delhi. While studying in DPS he had appeared for

class 10th examination under Roll No.6172168 and in the

same school he had appeared for class 12th examination in

the year 2008 under Roll No.6267327. He also stated that

his class 10th result was declared on 20 th May, 2006 but his

date of birth in the class 10th pass certificate as well as in

mark sheet issued by the CBSE was wrongly shown as 18 th

March, 1991. It is also the case of the petitioner that after

passing class 12th examination from the DPS on 23rd May,

2008 he has tried in various colleges for further studies and

he had filled the same date of birth in all the admission forms

as was shown in the class 10th pass certificate and mark

sheet. It is also stated that some time in 2009 the petitioner

realized that inconsistency in his date of birth would create

problem in near future for higher studies for which he took

steps and applied to the Principal of the Delhi Public School

requesting the change of his date of birth in the said

certificates. It is also stated that the said request of the

petitioner was forwarded by the DPS to the CBSE and was

rejected by the CBSE vide letter dated 7th July, 2009 taking a

stand that no change/correction in the date of birth which is

the date from previous school records is permissible under

rule 69.2 of the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws. Feeling

aggrieved with the said decision taken by the CBSE, the

petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Mr.Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner submits that the parents of the petitioner

had been inadvertently furnishing the wrong date of birth

just due to mistake as the actual date of birth based on the

municipal records of the petitioner is 18th May, 1991.

Counsel further submits that the same date of birth was also

disclosed by the petitioner in his passport and accordingly

the passport of the petitioner carries the correct date of his

birth. Counsel, thus, urges that the said two documents, that

is, date of birth certificate issued by the NDMC and the

passport cannot be doubted and therefore based on the same,

directions be given to the respondent CBSE to correctly

record his date of birth as 18th May, 1991 instead of 18th

March, 1991 on the secondary certificate as well on the mark

sheet. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court

in Km. Para vs. Director, Central Board of Secondary

Education AIR 2004 Delhi 310.

4. Opposing the present petition, Mr.Atul Kumar,

learned counsel for the respondent CBSE submits that the

respondent has placed on record various documents

pertaining to the petitioner right from the transfer certificate

issued by Maharaja Sawai Man Singh Vidyalaya, Jaipur where

the petitioner has studied upto class 6th which clearly records

his date of birth as 18th March, 1991. Counsel further

submits that even in the admission forms duly filled in by the

parents of the petitioner for class VII in Ramjas School and in

the school leaving certificate of the said school, the date of

birth of the petitioner has been disclosed as 18th March, 1991

and similarly in the admission form issued by the Delhi Public

School and also the examination form of class 10 th

examination which was signed by the petitioner himself, the

same date of birth, that is 18th March, 1991 has been filled in

by the petitioner. Counsel however submits that firstly there

is no scope of any mistake in the date of birth of the

petitioner because the said date was either filled in by the

petitioner himself or by the parents of the petitioner and

secondly the said date of birth was also filled in words as

well. Counsel further placed reliance on Bye-law 69.2 of the

Examination Bye-laws of CBSE to contend that as per the

said Bye-laws, the date of birth once recorded in the Board's

record cannot be changed and it is only the correction which

is permissible to correct typographical errors so as to make

the certificate consistent with the school records and that too

where request is made for such corrections before the

submission of an application for admission for the Board

examination. Counsel further submits that the request made

by the petitioner is not to carry out the correction in his date

of birth in the school records rather the case of the petitioner

herein is that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the

school records itself and, therefore, the request of the

petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent vide letter

dated 7th July, 2009. In support of his arguments counsel has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this

court in the case of Bhagwat Dayal vs. CBSE & Ors . LPA

No.783/2010 decided on 24.1.2011.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced

by them.

6. The petitioner herein seeks rectification in his

date of birth in his class 10th certificate and mark sheet from

'18.3.1991' to '18.5.1991' at the threshold of his career as

recently he has noticed the incorrect recording of his date of

birth in his 10th class certificate and the mark sheet while his

correct date of birth has been recorded in his passport. The

petitioner has taken a stand that the only authentic document

to ascertain the correct date of birth would be the birth

certificate which has been issued by the NDMC and there can

be no reason to disbelieve the same. As per the petitioner he

was born in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 18.5.1991 and

through the administrative office of the hospital the said date

of birth was sent to the NDMC wherefrom the birth

certificate recording the date of birth as 18.5.91 was issued

in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also taken a

stand that the records maintained by the public authorities

must be given due weightage and credence instead of

admission form and other school forms where due to human

error sometimes wrong information can be recorded.

7. The counsel for the respondent CBSE on the other

hand submits that the respondent Board is bound by its rules

and under Rule 69.2 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, the

date of birth once recorded in the record of the Board cannot

be changed. Counsel has further argued that under the said

bye laws only if any typographical error has crept in, the

records can be rectified but to the limited extent of making

the said certificate consistent with the school records,

provided no correction is made in the school records after the

submission of the application form by the student for

admission to the examination of the Board. Counsel has also

placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division

Bench in Ms. Jigya Yadav Vs. Central Board of Secondary

Education & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3774/2010 decided on

20.12.2010. Counsel for the respondent has also taken a

stand that the petitioner was a student of Maharaja Sawai

Man Singh Vidyalaya, Jaipur and in the transfer certificate

issued by the said school on 1.4.2002 his date of birth has

been recorded as 18.3.1991 both in figures and in words.

Counsel further argued that the petitioner had joined Ramjas

School, Pusa Road, New Delhi in class VII where the father of

the petitioner had filled the admission form on 2.4.2002 in his

own hand writing and there also the date of birth of the

petitioner was recorded as 18.3.1991 again both in figures

and in words. The respondent further submits that in the

school leaving certificate issued by the Ramjas School on

7.8.2003, again the date of birth of the petitioner was

recorded as 18.3.91 and similarly when the petitioner was

admitted in class 8th in Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, the

father of the petitioner had filled the same date of birth in his

own hand writing and the said form was signed by both the

parents of the petitioner on 1.8.03 and even in the admission

register of Delhi Public School, the same date of birth has

been duly recorded. The counsel has also contended that the

father of the petitioner had also filled the declaration form

dated 1.8.2003 and the same was also signed by both the

parents of the petitioner and there also the date of birth of

the petitioner was recorded as 18.3.1991 both in figures and

in words. Counsel has further submitted that in the list of

students submitted by the school for the All India Secondary

School Examination 2006, the date of birth of the petitioner

was recorded as 18.3.1991 both in words and in figures.

Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner passed the

said examination and on having passed the said examination

a certificate was issued to the petitioner recording the same

date of birth i.e. 18.3.1991.

8. On a bare perusal of various admission forms and

the school leaving certificates, enrolment forms and extracts

of the admission records pertaining to the petitioner, there is

no room to doubt that throughout the parents of the

petitioner and even the petitioner himself has furnished his

date of birth as 18.3.1991. The date of birth was not only

filled in figures but in words as well in various admission and

other forms, therefore it cannot be said there was a

possibility of any error being committed in recording the said

date of birth by the school authorities. The date of birth in

the school record is recorded at the instance of the parents of

the petitioner as who else would know the correct date of

birth of the petitioner except his own parents. It is not the

case of the petitioner that his parents are illiterate or they

belong to any rural background or somebody else had filled

the said forms. Every such form either had been filled by the

father of the petitioner or the petitioner himself and most of

these forms were signed by the father of the petitioner and

some of the forms were signed by both the parents of the

petitioner. In the teeth of all these school records, it cannot

be believed that there was any error committed by the

parents of the petitioner in recording the date of birth of the

petitioner.

9. Now as per the examination bye law 69.2 of the

respondent CBSE, no change in the date of birth as recorded

in the Board's records can be made unless the correction is

to correct a typographical error to make the certificate

consistent with the school records. For better appreciation,

bye-law 69.2 is reproduced as under:

"69.2 Change/Correction in Date of Birth

(i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board.

(ii) Such correction in Date of Birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidates/application form of the candidate for the examination.

(iii) Request for correction in Date of Birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School alongwith attested Photostat copies of :

(a) application for admission of the candidate to the School;

(b) portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been made; and

(c) the School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at the time of admission.

(iv) The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of School alongwith documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2(iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within two years of the date of declaration of result of Class X examination. No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of two years."

It would be thus seen that under bye-law 69.2 only

typographical error can be rectified and that too where such

an error crept in the Board's records does not tally with the

school records. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Bhagwant

Dayal(supra) was also confronted with a similar situation

where also the petitioner had relied upon the birth certificate

issued by the municipal authority but without commenting

upon the same, the Hon'ble Divison Bench held as under:

"5. The decisions of the learned Single Judge in case of Km. Meenu and Kumari Para (supra) cannot be relied upon in the present case. It may be noted here that this Court is not correcting or commenting upon the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths under the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969. Single judges in the said cases were dealing with the prior bye-laws, which did not have any specific bar or prohibition or fixed time limit. We are concerned with the Bye- laws 69.1 and 69.2 of the CBSE Bye-laws. Bye-law 69.1 of the CBSE Bye-laws has been quoted above. There is a bar/prohibition and a time limit has been fixed in the bye-laws. Bye-law 69.2 which deals with the change or correction of date of birth, reads as under:-

............

8. In the present case, class 10 certificate is dated 3rd June, 2000. Thereafter, the appellant had appeared in the All India Secondary School Certificate Examination in the year 2003. At that time also, the appellant did not challenge or ask for change of the date of birth or the name of his father. The plea taken by the appellant that he could not observe the aforesaid mistake till January, 2010 when the appellant was appearing in Civil Services Examination has been rightly not accepted. The appellant had obtained a certificate from Health Department of Government of Haryana on 2nd February, 2010 and then had approached CBSE and his school. Learned single judge has further observed that notices were issued to three schools where the appellant had studied. One school had stated that records were not available;

another school had stated that no student by the appellant's name was enrolled with them and the third school where the appellant was studying when he had appeared in 10th class examination, had enclosed copy of admission form dated 21st April, 1999, extract of the admission withdrawal register and the transfer certificate dated 31st March, 1999 issued by his previous school. In these documents, the date of birth was recorded as 18th March, 1984 and not 18th March, 1985. The appellant's father's name was mentioned as Bhim Singh and not Bhim Sain.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs."

Thus it would be manifest from above that the petitioner

cannot be allowed to sleep over the mistake committed by

him once and then repeating it throughout his academic

career, till the time it becomes an immutable damage. The

period of limitation of two years provided in the said bye law

is a reasonable time for a student to take notice of a

discrepancy that has crept in and make amends. It cannot be

lost sight of the fact that getting an entry corrected in the

certificates is not a vested right and is subject to limitations

as stipulated by the respondents. Delay defeats justice and

loss of limitation destroys the remedy. Directing to

frequently correct the entries of date of birth in the

certificates issued by the respondents without any time frame

would be casting a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the

certificates itself.

10. The 10th certificate issued by the CBSE goes with

the life of a student as this certificate is the authenticated

proof of the date of birth of a student. Such certificate is

invariably accepted as a valuable piece of evidence in proof

of date of birth and age of the applicant throughout his

career ahead and even the courts attach a high degree of

probative value to the certificate and the date of birth as

entered in the certificate is accepted as almost binding. A

student and his/her parents have to be very careful, alert and

vigilant while disclosing the date of birth at the time of

submission of forms for the examination of 10 th class as any

error at that stage certainly can prove fatal. In the present

case, the parents of the petitioner had throughout been

disclosing the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.3.1991 and

this would be evident from the transfer certificate issued by

Maharaja Sawai Man Singh Vidyalaya, Jaipur on 1.4.2002 and

the said date of birth remained consistent in various

subsequent forms filled in and signed by the petitioner and

his parents. In the face of all these documents, it is hard to

believe that the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner

himself would keep committing the mistake in furnishing the

said date of birth. The particulars in the certificates,

especially the date of birth carry with them a prima facie

guarantee of correctness as they are furnished by the parents

or the applicant himself and hence it is difficult to assume

that they are false or incorrect. Date of birth is something

that no parent or child can forget or mistake and while

receiving the certificate if there is a mistake then the student

would make out within no time the mistake in the certificate

and take steps for immediate rectification. The contention of

the counsel for the petitioner that in the passport the date

of birth disclosed by the petitioner was 18.5.1991, does not

find any merit in the eyes of law as the said information also

must have been furnished by the petitioner or his parents and

the said information could also be erroneous.

11. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, this

court does not find any merit in the present petition and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

May 10, 2011                           KAILASH GAMBHIR, J