Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4509 Gua
Judgement Date : 6 November, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010241842023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6391/2023
MD. MOBIN ALI @ MOBIN ALI
S/O MD. LATIF ALI, R/O VILL-RANGHAR CHARIALI, HATIKUKH, P.O.-
DHULIAPAR, P.S.-SIVASAGAR, DIST-SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785640
VERSUS
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHILPA GRAM ROAD, NEAR
SHANKARDEV KALASHETRA, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-37
2:THE REGIONAL OFFICER
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
SHILPA GRAM ROAD NEAR SHANKARDEV KALASHETRA
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37
3:THE PRINCIPAL
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA (ONGC)
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-78564
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. M H CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBSE
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 06.11.2023 Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. R. Borah, learned standing counsel for the CBSE.
2. The petitioner claims that the result of CBSE Examination, 2019 was declared on 06.05.2019 and on 29.02.2020, the mother of the petitioner applied before the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, ONGC, Sivasagar for correction of date of birth of the petitioner from 16.09.2000 (incorrect) to 25.05.2003 (correct). The application was forwarded to the regional office of CBSE by the school authorities on 08.07.2020, however, the Deputy Secretary (Exam), CBSE by communication dated 14.06.2022, which is impugned in this writ petition, had rejected the application. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies on clauses 69.1 and 69.2 of the CBSE Notification 01.02.2018 and accordingly, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned standing counsel for the CBSE has submitted that while correction of candidate's name, mother's name and father's name is permitted under clause 69.1 of the said notification, but the prayer for change of date of birth is not entertainable under clause 69.2. Accordingly, it is submitted that in a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA 384/2023, Panna Dey v. Union of India, it has been held that error in recording of date of birth is a disputed question of fact. However, she prays for some time to produce a copy of the said order.
4. Prayer is allowed.
Page No.# 3/3
5. Be that as it may, issue notice returnable in 4 (four) weeks.
6. Requisite extra copies of the writ petition be furnished to the learned departmental counsel in course of the day.
7. List after 4 (four) weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!