^--r IN THE HIGH COURT OF C IN THE HIGH COURT OF WRIT PETITION (G.) N0. 115^2> OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^..<^ 7ff.l-<^ "••••^c'--'^ ..'• ^'.//^'^•••" Smt. Manju Nishad W/o Shri Dev Lal Nishad Aged about 39 years, R/o Village Damkadih, Post Hasda no.l, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari, C.G. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh. Through: The Secretary School Education Departa-nent, Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. The Board of Secondary Education, Raipur , through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Disrict Raipur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B.'LASPUR Vi/RST PFTITifSM •/fi's N0 11F>7t np' 9011"! ^vr^ai r's.- :; i M'-/i^ soi i'<si''^. a ii -^\j \-/r ^\. lT';/"'i^J^' i 1 i )^i^l^: Smt. Maniu Nishad Vsrsus RESPONDENTS ate isaarh & Another iVtfrii Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutton Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Preseni:- Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. :h,»- 'Ui or ine atate. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 18ln day of !V!aroh, 2010) Wfth the consent of leamed counsei apDearing for the parties", the petition is heard finaiSy. By this petitlon, the petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 12-1-2009 (Annexure - P/1) of the Assistant Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education; Raipur, vihereby and v»hereunderthe case of t'ne oetltioner 'nas not been considered for correction of her date of birth and further, seete a direction to the respondent authorities to correct the date of binh of the petitioner. Leamed counsel appearino for the petitioner submits that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 1 1 -7-1969 and the same has bee" mentioned in the mark sheets Qf her 5 & 8 class mark sheets, which is evident from Annexurs - P/2 Pt'3, respsctlvel". Hov/ever, in the 11I" class mark sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, in Aprii, 1988, it has been mentioned as i.fvf, 11-7-1952 ('Annexure - P/3). After having come io kno'»v sbout the said mistske; according to the petltioner, the petitioner submitted a representation for correction of her date of' birth before the respondent authorities on 10-12-2008, wnich has been rejected and communjcated to the petitioner on 12-1-2009. Hence, this petition. 4. S have heard ieamed counsel aopearina for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended •thereto. 5. The State Governmem has framed the rutes nameiv: Madh'ya Pradesh Dste of Birth (Entries in ihe Reglster) Rules, 1973 (for short "the Rules, 1973" correction or chanae in the date of blrth is Drovidef •^'it'^na •i ayyi The under Ruies 8 and 9 of the Ruies, 1973. Rule 9 reads as under: ne Appiicaiion date of birth : No appiication for correctlon in date of birth recorded in school records shatl be entertained under rules 7 and 8 after the form for the Board's examination 3t the end of secondsi-y level of education has been sent to the Board or after the student has left the school, if the student has not pursued education upto the end of secondar^' standard." 6. On bare perusal of Ruie 9 of the Ruies, 1973, it appears that no appiication for correctlon of date of birth recorded in the - schooi records inciudina the Board's examination shall be tasned atier tf.e student nas iett liiy .^T\ 9. •^ r^o. lh The petitionsr was granted 1 1'" ciass mark sheet in the year Aprii, 1988 in whlch the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 11-7-1962. The petitioner ouaht to have ralsed her grievance about the wrong mentioning of date of birth 'tVlthin the stipulated period of 10 years as prescribed bv the resoondent authorities, but she has raised the objection oniy in the year December, 2008 i.e. after Sapse ot more than tv.'o decades. T'ne cause of action arose in the vear 1988 and the petitloner has stept over her riaht for a long period without offering cogent and sufficient reasons for the deiav occurred on ber part. The !aw on the principie of walver and acqulescence is welt settled that, if the pereon sieeps over his rights and is not vigiiant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, he may not be entitied to the same relisf as was granted to >r vigiiant persons.' othe 8e ihat as it may, It is well settled principie of Saw that any such cSaim regardlng correction ofdate of birth shouid not be made or entertained after decades. (See -Stnte of U.P. an< Another v. -Shr.' Naraln Upadhyay ). Appiying the weii setiled principies of iaw and for the reasons statea" herelnabove; the petitioner is not entitied to anv rellef. Accordinaiv, the writ oetstion is dlsmissed at the motlon staae Itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge c^ ;- ((2UUO) 'Q &^^ 4kd