Madras High Court

Mary Lucy Oakey vs The Secretary on 10 October, 2025

Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                             W.P. No.34161 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 10.10.2025

                                                         CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                            W.P. No.34161 of 2025 and
                                            W.M.P. No.38306 of 2025

                Mary Lucy Oakey                                                            ... Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs.
                1.The Secretary,
                  Department of School Education,
                  Government of Tamil Nadu,
                  Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

                2.The Department of School Education,
                  Represented by the Secretary- The Principal of
                   the School Education,
                  Tamil Nadu having address at
                  17, College Road, Subba Road Avenue,
                  Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 008.

                3.The Department of Government Examinations,
                  Represented by its Joint Director (Personnel),
                  DPI Campus, College Road,
                  Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

                4.The Secretary,
                  Director of College Education,
                  577, Anna Salai, Saidapet,
                  Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 015.                                         ... Respondent(s)

                Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
                for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on


                1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )
                                                                                          W.P. No.34161 of 2025

                the file of the 3rd respondent, being the rejection letter having the reference
                number R.C.No.208270/B5(1)/2025 dated 10.07.2025 along with other
                connected records and quash the same and consequently direct the 2 nd, 3rd and
                4th respondents to change petitioner's date of birth from 24.06.1975 to
                24.06.1974 in petitioner's book and mark sheet of both 10th and 12th standards
                and in petitioner's degree certificate and issue the petitioner, a fresh certificate
                at the earliest possible date.

                                  For Petitioner(s)              : Mr.P.Ambili Menon

                                  For Respondent(s)              : Mr.S.Prabakaran
                                                                   Government Advocate

                                                       ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the rejection letter issued by

the 3rd respondent dated 10.07.2025 and to consequently direct respondents 2, 3

and 4 to change petitioner's date of birth from 24.06.1975 to 24.06.1974 in

petitioner's 10th, 12th mark sheets and Degree certificate and to issue fresh

certificates to the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a

twin. Petitioner and her twin sister were born to Mr.Leonard Oakey and

Mrs.Rajammal Samuel on 24.6.1974 and their birth was duly registered with

the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is stated that petitioner's father

passed away while they were 5 years old and thereafter petitioner's mother

passed away when they were 15 years old. Due to their parent's mistake, their

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )

date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 24.06.1975, at the time of admission at

School. Accordingly, petitioner's School Leaving Certificate and High

Secondary Certificate were also issued by mentioning the date of birth as

24.06.1975. However, it is stated that except these certificates, correct date of

birth is mentioned in all the other certificates such as Aadhaar, Passport etc., as

24.06.1974.

3. In order to correct the aforesaid discrepancy, petitioner submitted an

application before the 2nd respondent seeking change of her date of birth from

24.06.1975 to 24.06.1974, on 20.04.2025 in her 10 th and 12th mark sheets and

Degree certificate by producing copies of computer generated birth certificate,

passport and Aadhaar card. Petitioner has also submitted representation before

the 3rd and 4th respondents on 19.05.2025, 04.04.2025 and 06.06.2025

respectively. While so, the 3rd respondent vide communication dated

10.07.2025 had rejected the petitioner's request for alteration of date of birth on

the ground that subsidiary Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Secondary School Leaving

Certificate Scheme states that “Applications requesting change of the Date of

Birth in the certificate must not, however be entertained after a pupil had

completed his school course and appeared for the Public Examination”.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )

Aggrieved, by the same, petitioner has come before this Court.

4. This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court in W.A.No.3798 of 2019 in the case of S.Indumathi vs. The

Chief Secretary to Government dated 09.12.2019.

5. Learned counsel for respondents would rely upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (Minor) vs. Central Board

of Secondary Education reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535, to contend that the

application for alteration of date of birth will not be entertained after the pupil

have completed SSLC Public Examination also is much earlier to the

registration of birth and the rules framed thereunder.

6. The aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

Division Bench of this Court are extracted hereunder:

(i)Decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 7 Supreme Court Cases 535 (Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education):

“?15. To buttress the above submission, it is urged that CBSE, being an autonomous society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has the power to make, amend or delete its Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws. Accordingly, Bye-law 69.1 was amended as the basic record of a student is kept by the school and the Board has no option but to rely upon the school record. It is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )

further submitted that the parents of the appellant had ample opportunity to correct the school record and they chose not to do so. In fact, the respondent adds, they repeatedly filled the same particulars of their names in all the school forms from time to time.

16. The Board has also filed elaborate written submissions to support their case. It is submitted that the Examination Bye~laws of the Board are statutory in nature as they were framed in furtherance of the powers granted to the Board as per the Government of India Resolution dated 1-7-1929 and deviation cannot be permitted from the bye-laws. As regards the argument of violation of fundamental rights, the Board has submitted that there may be a fundamental right to be identified as per the choice of an individual, but there can be no fundamental right to claim that the changed identity must be operative since birth thereby compelling all including statutory bodies to carry out changes in documents issued by them. It is urged that any other view would amount to misuse of liberty and cause serious confusion at different level. Reliance has been placed upon Rayaan Chawla v.

University of Delhi [Rayaan Chawla v. University of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1413 : (2020) 275 DLT 314] to support this position.

17. The Board has further submitted that the restrictions/conditions for change of name and date of birth are reasonable as all the details are supplied by the students/parents at various stages of admissions which offers a prima facie guarantee of genuineness. It is submitted that change of name and date of birth in a reckless manner could have serious repercussions ? misuse for employment, manipulating age of the accused, etc. Reliance has been placed upon Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 370 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 379] to illustrate this.

182. The impugned judgments categorically note that the request for changes could not be permitted as per the bye~laws. Thus, there was no demonstration or inquiry to determine the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )

existence of any legal right in favour of students. Even if we assume that courts issued directions purely on the basis of fundamental rights, there is no discussion or inquiry in this regard. More so, there is no attempt to examine the vires of the bye-laws in light of the breach of fundamental rights, as discussed in the initial part of this judgment. Absent any such adverse determination on the validity of the applicable rules, the fundamental principle of rule of law demands that such rules be given their intended effect. Even if a constitutional court feels that the case at hand is deserving of an extraordinary remedy, it may do so using its wide powers under Article 226 but only upon specific appraisal of the facts of the case and after duly demonstrating the extraordinary character of the case. Despite holding that the prayers are impermissible under the bye~laws, the Courts in the present set of cases went on to issue directions to the Board without having any regard to the factual circumstances of the case or to the nature of changes sought by the students, by mechanically relying upon the dictum in Subin Mohammed [Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 39731 :

(2016) 1 KLT 340] . We must note that Subin Mohammed [Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 39731 :

(2016) 1 KLT 340] is not in challenge before us but must be now understood in terms of opinion recorded in this judgment. Our concern is with the manner in which mechanical reliance has been placed upon the earlier decision for deciding cases which involved an altogether different set of changes.

194. As regards request for ?change? of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like birth certificate, Aadhaar card, election card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )

195. In light of the above, in exercise of our plenary jurisdiction, we direct the CBSE to process the applications for correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificate issued by it in the respective cases under consideration. Even other pending applications and future applications for such request be processed on the same lines and in particular the conclusion and directions recorded hitherto in paras 193 and 194, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant bye-laws. Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant bye~laws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it.?

(ii)Decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.3798 of 2019 (S.Indumathi Vs. The Chief Secretary to Government) dated 09.12.2019:

“?12. Appellant herein has stated that there is a discrepancy in the Date of Birth recorded in the passport and in her school certificate. It has been contended before us that the discrepancy is affecting her admission in a course, outside the Country and that the correction of Date of Birth is exactly two months. If any corrections are made, it will not cause prejudice to anybody. It is also stated that the admission to a course which she has got abroad will get affected due to this discrepancy.

13. We, at the moment are not entering into the issue as to whether the order, dated 18/9/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.9340 of 2009, followed in W.P.No.23716 of 2014, is correct or not.

14. In view of the fact that the career of the appellant has bright prospects, and that she might have lose her seat because of the discrepancy in the date of birth, we permit the correction of date of birth to 17/7/1997 in the peculiar facts of this case only and for the said purpose only. This case shall not be cited as a precedent for any other case.?”

7. Needless to state, the provisions of any Central Act would prevail over

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )

the State Act. When the statutory provisions stated supra enable the competent

authority to register the birth and to make corrections or cancellation as the case

may be, the contention of the respondents that no correction is permissible in

the school record after the student leaves the institution cannot be

countenanced.

8. In view of the above, the order impugned in this writ petition cannot

sustain and the same is liable to be set aside, accordingly, the impugned order is

set aside. The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to change the petitioner's date of

birth from 24.06.1975 to 24.06.1974 in the 10th, 12th mark sheets and Degree

Certificate and issue fresh certificates to the petitioner within a period of four

(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

10.10.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/ Non-Speaking order mka

To:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:22 pm )

1.The Secretary,Department of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Secretary- The Principal of the School Education, Department of School Education, Tamil Nadu having address at 17, College Road, Subba Road Avenue, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 008.