IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5204 of 2006 Sweta Kumari Singh, D/o-Rudra Pratap Singh, resident of Village-Jagannath Puri, P.O., P.S. & District-Katihar. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Chairman, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Katihar. 6. The Headmaster, Uma Devi Mishra Girls High School, Katihar. –Respondents. ----------- 08 28.01.2011 The petitioner had appeared for the Matriculation examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in the year 2000. In the Matriculation certificate her date of birth was wrongly noted as 05.05.1982 because of which she is now before this Court, having failed to wake up the authorities of the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Counter affidavits have been filed, with consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. The case of the petitioner is that her actual date of birth as per the school admission register was 05.12.1987 (5th December, 1987). Her case is that when she was filling up her registration form in the year 1999 for appearing in the Matriculation examination, which was to be held in April 2000, parents realized that she would be under age. Accordingly, on advice, they agreed to shift her date of birth as 05.03.1986. The school authorities were accordingly informed and in the admission register itself, it is not disputed, this change was made and noted. Her case is that thereafter she applied for registration receipt but when the registration receipt was issued her date of birth - 2 - therein was shown as 05.05.1982. The Headmaster of the school immediately corrected the date of birth on the registration slip, which fact is also not disputed. On basis of this corrected date of birth as 05.03.1986 petitioner sent her examination form with the registration number and date of birth as 05.03.1986 and was issued admit card by the Board, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, showing her date of birth as 05.03.1986 and no objection was taken by the Board. After examination, when results were declared the certificate as issued by the Board showed her date of birth as 05.05.1982. The petitioner’s case is that having received the said certificate immediately thereafter on 02.09.2000 applications were filed for correction of date of birth, which fact is not denied. When nothing was done, applications were again sent in 2003 along with previous applications. This is admitted by the Board. In response thereto, the school was required to send original copies of various documents which was again supplied to the Board in 2003 itself, it is also not in dispute. Thereafter, the Board slept and petitioner was left with no option but to move this writ petition. A counter affidavit was first filed stating that petitioner was late in making the application, it could not be acted upon as records were not available. How petitioner was late, having made her application in 2000 itself and then in 2003 and supplied information, pursuant to query as made by the Board itself, is not explained. This Court directed the Board to explain as to what was the source of information available to it for giving the date of birth as 05.05.1982. - 3 - A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed stating that it was on basis of application received from the petitioner, unfortunately, the said application has not been annexed on the plea that all those papers have since been destroyed. When it was destroyed is not disclosed and as it is evident that at least till 2003 they were all with the Board and enquiries were being made. Be that as it may, the situation is that the Board is unable to place on record any material to show that 05.05.1982 was the date of birth as disclosed by the petitioner for the purposes of her registration at the first instance itself. To the contrary, the fact as brought on record suggests that at the very inception petitioner had noticed the discrepancy and got correction made at school level. The petitioner applied for correction to the Board but the Board for reasons best known to them slept over the matter. Petitioner has now filed the Municipal certificate of date of birth which of course has been obtained recently, which shows her date of birth to be 05.03.1986, the reasons of which has already been noted earlier. A feeble attempt on behalf of the Board has been made stating that even if 05.05.1986 is taken to be the date of birth then petitioner is four days of short to complete 14 years which is the minimum age at which Matriculation examination can be taken. In my view, Matriculation examination being conducted in March/April 2000, four days would be inconsequential and such plea have now been taken after such a long time should not come in way of necessary correction. In none of the counter affidavits - 4 - it has been explained as to why Board took no action on petitioner’s application even though it accepts in the counter that applications have been received. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts of this case, I am left with no option but to direct the Board to correct the date of birth in the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner. The date of birth as recorded therein being 05.05.1982 shall be changed to 05.03.1986. The change shall be done on payment of the appropriate fee in that regard within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent-Secretary of the Bihar School Examination Board. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)