Orissa High Court
Rajkishore Patra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 29 November, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2499 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Rajkishore Patra .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA
(Opp. Party No. 1)
Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate
along with
Mr. A.A. Mishra, Avocate
(Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4)
Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate
(Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6)
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 03.10.2023 and Date of Judgment: 29.11.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
// 2 //
"Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be
graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue rule
NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs
as deem fit and proper calling upon the opposite parties to
show-cause as to why the orders vide Annexure-5 and 6 shall
not be quashed and why necessary correction of the date of
birth of the petitioner as 26.05.1975 instead of 26.05.1972, in
the High School Certificate of the petitioner vide Annexure-2
shall not be carried out.
In the event of the opposite parties fail to show-cause
or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute.
And further be pleased to pass any order/orders
direction/directions as deem fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray."
2. It is contended that the original date of birth of the Petitioner being
26.05.1975, the said date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded while
the Petitioner took admission in Sradhapur U.P. School in the year 1980.
After completion of Class V in the year 1985, Petitioner took admission
in Sradhapur M.E. School, where his date of birth was also recorded as
26.05.1975. Subsequently, Petitioner took admission in Class VIII in
Sankhari High School, Sankhari under Bhograi Block in Balasore
District.
2.1. It is contended that Petitioner though produced the school leaving
certificate issued by the Headmaster, Sradhapur M.E. School on
15.07.1987 under Annexure-1 and in the said certificate date of birth of
the Petitioner was mentioned as 26.05.1975, but somehow or other in the
// 3 //
school admission register of Sankhari High School, Sankhari the date of
birth of the Petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 26.05.1972 in place of
26.05.1975. Because of such wrong recording of the date of birth of the
Petitioner as 26.05.1972 in the school admission register of Sankhari
High School, Sankhari, the said date of birth was also reflected in the
High School Pass certificate issued by the Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha on 15.12.1990 under Annexure-2.
2.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the
Petitioner was a minor by the time he passed his HSC examination held
in the year 1990 with such wrong recording of his date of birth as
26.05.1972 in place of 26.05.1975, Petitioner could not know about the
same and accordingly could not take any step to correct such wrong
recording of his date of birth. It is also contended that Petitioner after
completing his education joined as a Junior Engineer on contractual
basis vide order dtd.27.06.2018 of the Engineer-In-Chief, Water
Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Only when Petitioner was regularized
in his service with opening of his service book on 03.09.2019, he came
to know that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 26.05.1972
in place of 26.05.1975 in his HSC Pass Certificate so issued under
Annexure-2.
// 4 //
2.3. Petitioner on coming across such wrong recording of his date of
birth immediately moved the D.E.O., Balasore for correction of the same
in the school admission register of Sankhari High School, Sankhari. On
receipt of such application, D.E.O., Balasore directed the Block
Education Officer, Bhograi to cause an enquiry and submit a report.
Accordingly, B.E.O., Bhograi caused an enquiry and after verifying the
admission register of Sradhapur U.P. & M.E. School so also the
admission register of Sankhari High School, submitted a report by
indicating therein that the date of birth of the Petitioner though is
recorded as 26.05.1975 in the school admission register of both
Sradhapur U.P. & M.E. School, but in the school admission register of
Sankhari High School, Sankhari, his date of birth has been wrongly
recorded as 26.05.1972 in place of 26.05.1975.
2.4. Basing on such report of the B.E.O., Bhograi, Petitioner filed an
application before the Headmaster, Sankhari High School, Sankhari-
Opp. Party No. 5 to correct his date of birth as 26.05.1975 in place of
26.05.1972. When no action was taken on such claim of the Petitioner as
made on 16.11.2020 under Annexure-3, Petitioner approached this Court
in W.P.(C) No. 14314 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.10.06.2021
under Annexure-4 directed the present Opp. Party No. 3 to take a
// 5 //
decision on the claim raised by the Petitioner in his application under
Annexure-3.
2.5. It is contended that Opp. Party No. 3 without proper appreciation of
the Petitioner's claim and the report submitted by the B.E.O., Bhograi as
well as the recording of the date of birth of the Petitioner in the school
admission register of Sradhapur U.P. & M.E. School, refused to correct
the date of birth of the Petitioner as 26.05.1975 in place of 26.05.1972
vide the impugned communication dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-6
and consequential communication issued by the Opp. Party No. 5 on
14.12.2021 under Annexure-5. It is contended that such claim of the
Petitioner was rejected by the Opp. Party No. 3 relying on Rule 39 of the
Board's Regulation.
2.6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since in both the
school admission register of Sradhapur U.P. & M.E. School, Petitioner's
date of birth was recorded as 26.05.1975 and in school leaving certificate
issued by Sradhapur M.E. School under Annexure-1, his date of birth
was recorded as 26.05.1975, Petitioner should not be made to suffer
because of wrong committed by the school authorities of Sankhari High
School, Sankhari in recording his date of birth as 26.05.1972.
// 6 //
2.7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that since
Petitioner prior to opening of his service book on 03.09.2019 had no
occasion to know about the wrong recording of his date of birth as
26.05.1972, he had no occasion to make any application before Opp.
Party No. 3 for correction of his date of birth. It is accordingly contended
that the ground on which the claim of the Petitioner was rejected by the
Opp. Party No. 3 is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav Vs.
C.B.S.E. (AIR 2021 SC 4775). Hon'ble Apex Curt in Para 70, 79, 96,
137, 146, 150, 162 & 172 of the said Judgment has held as follows:-
"70. It is further submitted that the respondent's claim was
barred by the principle of estoppel as he was mandatorily
required to submit his birth certificate in school at the time of
admission as per Byelaw 6 of the Examination Byelaws, 1995
so that the school record could be in consonance with the
birth certificate. Since the respondent failed to produce the
same at the time of admission, it is urged, the school record
carried the information voluntarily supplied in the admission
form and no change can be permitted at this stage.
XXX XXX XXX
79. As regards cases wherein the request for change of name
is bona fide and there is no scope for prejudice, the decision
of learned Single Judge directing such changes was held to
be correct. The Court observed thus:
"3. On the other hand, we find that if correction has
been genuinely and bona fide sought and no prejudice is
// 7 //
caused, then in that event the conclusion arrived at by the
learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any
infirmity."
XXX XXX XXX
96. Respondent No. 6 (Satish Kumar @Shrey) has filed "Note
on submissions" wherein various grounds have been
advanced to question the prohibitory Byelaws of the Board
and support the case for permitting genuine changes in
certificates. It has been submitted that the Byelaws are not
statutory in nature and thus, they cannot be made as "law"
within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution and
cannot be the basis to deprive the students of their
fundamental right to express their identity under Article
19(1)(a). Reliance has been placed upon Kabir Jaiswal v.
Union of India and Ors. (2020 SCC OnLine All 1488 : (AIR
2021 ALL 96) to support this position.
XXX XXX XXX
137. No doubt, it is true that CBSE certificates are not strictly
meant to be considered as identity documents, however, the
same are being relied upon for corroborative purposes in all
academic and career related transactions as foundational
document. In fact, the CBSE itself has conceded to this fact
that their certificates are relied for all official purposes, as
noted above. The date of birth in matriculation certificate, in
particular, is relied upon as primary evidence of date of birth
of a citizen. Therefore, as regards the information contained
in a CBSE certificate, the Board must afford opportunity to
the students to modify it subject to complying with requisite
formalities which are reasonable in nature. If all other State
agencies could allow it for the preservance of consistency
and accuracy, alongside being enablers in free exercise of
rights by the citizens, there is no reason for the CBSE to not
uphold that right of the students. More so, it would be in the
interest of CBSE's own credibility that their records are
regarded as accurate and latest records of a student worthy
of being relied upon for official purposes. Therefore, this
approach would serve twin purposes - enabling free exercise
of rights and preservance of accuracy.
// 8 //
XXX XXX XXX
146. Similar provision is available for "correction" in date
of birth, either on the basis of school records or on the basis
of order of court. The word "change" is not used for date of
birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of birth and
there can only be a correction to make it consistent with
school record or order of Court. It cannot be changed to
replace the former with a fresh date of one's choice. Be it
noted, provisions relating to correction in date of birth and
name are just and reasonable and do not impose any
unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections. The
restriction regarding limitation period shall be examined
later, along with other provisions.
XXX XXX XXX
150. Indisputably, the candidate would pursue further
education and explore future career opportunities on the
basis of school records including the CBSE Board. The CBSE
maintains its official records in respect of candidate on the
basis of foundational documents being the school records.
Therefore, the CBSE is obliged to carry out all necessary
corrections to ensure that CBSE certificate is consistent with
the relevant information furnished in the school records as it
existed at the relevant time and future changes thereto
including after the publication of results by the CBSE.
However, when it comes to recording any information in the
original certificate issued by the CBSE which is not
consistent with the school records, it is essential that the
CBSE must insist for supporting public document which has
presumptive value and in the given case declaration by a
Court of law to incorporate such a change. In that regard,
the CBSE can insist for additional conditions to reassure
itself and safeguard its interest against any claim by a third
party/body because of changes incorporated by it pursuant to
application made by the candidate. In the concluding
paragraph, we intend to issue directions to the CBSE Board
in light of the discussion in this judgment. For the nature of
uniform directions that we propose to issue so as to obviate
any inconsistent approach in the cases under consideration
including future cases to be dealt with by the CBSE Board, it
// 9 //
is not necessary for us to dilate on the question of validity of
the respective amendments in the relevant Byelaws effected
from time to time.
XXX XXX XXX
162. The next issue for consideration is whether it is proper
for the High Courts to issue mandamus to the CBSE for
correction of certificates in complete contravention of the
Byelaws, without examining the validity of the Byelaws. For
issuing such directions, reliance has been placed upon Subin
Mohammed (2016 (1) KLT 340 : (AIR 2016 (NOC) 311
(KER), wherein the Court noted that the case does not
involve correction of a typographical nature, as permissible
in the Byelaws, but went on to uphold the right of the student
to apply for changes on the basis of statutory certificate. It
observed thus:
"35. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that the
bye law of CBSE cannot be applied to the fact situation. But
to reconcile the date of birth entry in the mark sheet with that
of the entry in the statutory certificate, the candidates should
not be left without any remedy. Their right to approach the
Court for redressing their grievance cannot be ruled out."
The court then delineated the principles for issuance
of writ of mandamus and noted that in the strict sense, a
mandamus would not lie but considering the damage that the
student could face as regards his career prospects, the
permission was granted. In paragraph 39, it noted thus:
"39. It is contended that the future prospects of the
petitioners to study or get employment abroad, will be
substantially affected if the entry of date of birth in the mark
sheet does not tally with that in the birth certificate. Though a
writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the strict sense, we are
of the view that, failure to exercise jurisdiction may put the
petitioners to serious hardship. Hence, to render justice, it is
always open for the Court to pass appropriate orders, taking
into account the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, if disputed questions of fact arises, it will not be
appropriate for this Court to entertain the matter."
(emphasis supplied)
// 10 //
The law regarding the writ of mandamus is settled.
The foremost requirement for issuance of mandamus is the
existence of a legal right against a body which is either a
public body or a nonpublic body performing a public
function. In Binny Ltd. ((2005) 6 scc 657 : (AIR 2005 sc
3202)), this Court summed up the principle thus:
"29. Thus, it can be seen that a writ of mandamus or
the remedy under Article 226 is preeminently a public law
remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against
private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of
the public or to compel public/statutory authorities to
discharge their duties and to act within their bounds. It may
be used to do justice when there is wrongful exercise of
power or a refusal to perform duties. This writ is admirably
equipped to serve as a judicial control over administrative
actions. This writ could also be issued against any private
body or person, specially in view of the words used in Article
226 of the Constitution. However, the scope of mandamus is
limited to enforcement of public duty. The scope of
mandamus is determined by the nature of the duty to be
enforced, rather than the identity of the authority against
whom it is sought. If the private body is discharging a public
function and the denial of any right is in connection with the
public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can
be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either
statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is
immaterial, but, nevertheless, there must be the public law
element in such action. Sometimes, it is difficult to distinguish
between public law and private law remedies. According to
Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 30, p.682,
"1317. A public authority is a body, not necessarily a county
council, municipal corporation or other local authority,
which has public or statutory duties to perform and which
perform those duties and carries out its transactions for the
benefit of the public and not for Private profit."
There cannot be any general definition of public
authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the
point."
In the present case, the question is not whether CBSE
was amenable to writ of mandamus or not. For, we have
already held the Board being a public body is performing a
public function. The question is whether there was an
// 11 //
enforceable legal right in favour of students to seek such a
direction and whether Byelaws have the force of law and
directions can be issued by the court only in conformity
thereof.
XXX XXX XXX
172. 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 paragraphs 170 and 171, as may be applicable,
until amendment of relevant Byelaws. Additionally, the CBSE
shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws 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."
2.8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on another decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Vs.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. ((2013) 1
SCC 353). Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 14 of the said Judgment has held
as follows:-
"14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the
High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour
of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is
otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised
judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made
by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be
condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the
conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be
sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial
justice and technical considerations are pitted against each
// 12 //
other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested
right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate
delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their
rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the
petitioners."
2.9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on a decision of the
Kerala High Court in the case of Subin Mohammed S. Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 1362 of 2015). Hon'ble Kerala High Court in
Para 40 & 41 of the said Judgment has held as follows:-
"40. In all these cases, there is delay on the part of the
petitioners in approaching CBSE, which cannot be lightly
condoned. Taking cue from Sarifuz Zaman (supra), they have
virtually slept over their rights. But failure to exercise
jurisdiction will result in injustice to the petitioners. Such
writ petitions can therefore be entertained only on imposing
cost on the petitioners, which we fix at 5,000/-.
41. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate
for this Court to dispose the writ petitions with the following
directions:
W.P(C) Nos.1362/15 & conn.cases
i) That CBSE shall correct the entries in the mark sheet of the
petitioners with reference to their corresponding birth
certificates issued by the statutory authority, if the request is
found to be genuine.
(ii) Genuineness of the birth certificate can be ascertained
from the respective local/statutory authority/Head of the
Institution or such other method, CBSE may deem it fit.
(iii) CBSE can demand in advance a consolidated fee,
including all expenses for processing such applications.
// 13 //
(iv) Each of the petitioners shall pay 5,000/-(Rupees Five
thousand only) as cost to CBSE within a period of one
month."
3. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Board along with
Mr. A.A. Mishra on the other hand made his submission basing on the
stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4.
Learned Sr. Counsel contended that since the Petitioner passed his HSC
examination conducted by the Board in the year 1990, in terms of the
provisions contained under Regulation 39 of the Regulation of Board of
Secondary Education, such nature of correction of date of birth is not
permissible. Rule 39 of the said Regulation prescribes as follows:-
"39. Date of Birth: The date of birth once entered in the
Board's records cannot be charged unless it is of the nature
of clerical error or printing mistake. Application for the
correction of the date of birth should be made within three
years of passing the examination. No change in date of birth
recorded shall be made unless the application for correction
is received through the head of the institution concerned
within three years of passing the examination."
3.1. It is further contended that since the Petitioner is making such a
belated claim for change of his date of birth, it is not entertainable in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India Vs. C. Rama Swamy reported in (1997) 4 SCC 647. Hon'ble Apex
Court in Para 25 of the said Judgment has held as follows:-
// 14 //
"25. In matters relating to appointment to service various
factors are taken into consideration before making a
selection or an appointment. One of the relevant
circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be
appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove that
an advantage had been gained by representing a date of birth
which is different than that which is later sought to be
incorporated. But it will not be reasonable to presume that
when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a
particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that
his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be
taken into consideration by the appointing authority for
adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact,
where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an
older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and,
therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be said that
advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier
date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age,
after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be
against public policy to permit such a change to enable
longer benefit to the person concerned. This being so, we find
it difficult to accept the broad proposition that the principle
of estoppel would not apply in such a case where the age of a
person who is sought to be appointed may be a relevant
consideration to assess his suitability."
3.2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Board also relied on another
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
S.C. Chadha reported in (2004) 3 SCC 394. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para
14 of the said Judgment has held as follows:-
"14. In the instant case the higher secondary examination
certificate was issued on 3.6.1962 which contained
information that the date of birth of the respondent was only
19.6.1944. If the said certificate disclosed a wrong date, it is
not explained by the respondent as to why he did not make
any move to get it corrected at that point or on any one of the
occasions when he sought and obtained employment in 7/8
// 15 //
public institutions. Merely because in 1994 an opportunity
was granted to the government employees to get their date of
birth correct, that does not take away the effect of inaction
and continued silence for more than three decades, which
dehors laches on his part would seriously reflect on the bona
fide nature of the claim itself. Even in the application made
for employment in the year 1992-93, the date of birth was
indicated, as noted above to be 19.6.1944. No
contemporaneous document was produced to show that
recording of the date of birth to be 19.6.1944 was wrong.
Accepting the plea of the respondent would result in two
public records, educational on one side and service on the
other reflecting two different and conflicting dates of birth.
Such anomalous situations are to be averted and not to be
countenanced."
3.3. It is also contended that the decision in the case of Jigya Yadav as
relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not applicable to the
facts of the present case in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Para 163 & 193 of the Judgment. It is accordingly contended
that since the Petitioner is raising a claim for change of his date of birth
more than 32 years of his passing the HSC examination, such a claim is
not entertainable and it has been rightly rejected by the Board vide
Annexure-6.
4. This Court taking into account the stand taken by the Petitioner that
his date of birth recorded as 26.05.1975 in the school admission register
of Sradhapur U.P. & M.E. School, passed an order on 13.07.2023 by
directing learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6 to
produce the original school admission register as well as the school
// 16 //
leaving certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the said
order learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6 produced
the transfer certificate issued by Sradhapur M.E. School on 15.07.1987
vide Annexure-1 and the school admission register of Sankhari High
School, Sankhari.
4.1. This Court after going through the transfer certificate issued by the
Sradhapur M.E. School on 15.07.1987 finds that the date of birth of the
Petitioner is recorded as 26.05.1975. In the school admission register of
Sankhari High School so produced by the learned counsel appearing for
the Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6, this Court finds that the date of birth of the
Petitioner was recorded as 26.05.1972 and it was corrected as
26.05.1975 in presence of the D.E.O., Balasore on 07.04.2017. This
Court after going through the School admission register of Opp. Party
No. 5 also finds that the date of birth of the Petitioner has been corrected
as 26.05.1975 in the school admission register by the B.E.O., Bhograi
after due verification of the date of birth so recorded in the transfer
certificate issued by Sradhapur M.E. School under Annexure-1.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going
through the materials available on record, it is found that in the school
admission register of Sradhapur M.E. School as well as the transfer
// 17 //
certificated issued in favor of the Petitioner on 15.07.1987 under
Annexure-1, the date of birth of the Petitioner is recorded as 26.05.1975..
Even though in the school admission register of Sankhari High School,
Sankhari, the date of birth of the Petitioner was wrongly recorded as
26.05.1972, but the same was corrected by the B.E.O., Bhograi after due
enquiry in terms of the direction issued by the District Education Officer,
Balasore. It is also found that even though Petitioner passed the HSC
examination in the year 1990, but the service book of the Petitioner was
only opened on 03.09.2019, wherein his date of birth was indicated as
26.05.1972. Petitioner after opening of his service book with wrong
recording of his date of birth immediately moved the school authority of
Opp. Party No. 5 to make correction of his date of birth as 26.05.1975 in
place of 26.05.1972.
5.1. Since the said prayer was not considered, Petitioner approached this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 14314 of 2021. This Court vide order
dtd.10.06.2021 when directed Opp. Party No. 3 to consider the
Petitioner's grievance as raised on 16.11.2020 under Annexure-3, the
said prayer was rejected by the Opp. Party No. 3 relying on the
provisions contained under Rule 39 of the Board's Regulation. Though
as per Rule 39 of the Board's Regulation, no change of date of birth is
// 18 //
permissible unless the application for correction is received through the
head of institution within 3 years of passing the examination, but in the
present case Petitioner when came to know that his date of birth has been
wrongly recorded in the service book, which was only opened on
03.09.2019 as 26.05.1972, he immediately took step for make necessary
correction of his date of birth by approaching the school authority of
Opp. Party No. 5 on 06.11.2020 under Annexure-3.
5.2. Therefore, in view of such position and the fact that in the school
admission register of both Sradhapur U.P. & M.E. School the date of
birth of the Petitioner is recorded as 26.05.1975 and the said fact was
also enquired and admitted by the B.E.O., Bhograi with necessary
correction of the date of birth in the school admission register of Opp.
Party No. 5. This Court placing reliance on the decision Jigya Yadav as
cited supra is of the view that the date of birth is required to be corrected
by the authorities of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. While
holding so, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection of the Petitioner's
claim so issued vide letter dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-6. While
quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to issue a fresh
HSC pass certificate in favour of the Petitioner by recording his date of
birth as 26.05.1975. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed
// 19 //
by Opp. Party No. 3 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 29th of November, 2023/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
