HIGH COURT OF ¢HHATTI$GARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1225 OF 2003 (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri satish K. Agnihatri, J" Present : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the 3tate. Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for the respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on'this 16‘“ day of October, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard tinally‘ 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that in the High school Examination mark sheet of the petitioner, the date of birth has been mentioned as “15-7-1982“ (Annexure-PH) whereas the actual date of birth of the petitioner is “1 5-7-1983", which is evident from Annexures-P/2, P/3 & PM. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities for correction of his date of birth in the mark sheet, but the respondents disallowed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the prayer for correction of date of birth cannot he accepted after three years from the date of publication of the result The petitioner is the resident of rural area and he approached the respondent authorities after formation of the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner prays that the respondents may kindly be directed to, correct the date of birth of the petitioner herein as “15-7-1 983" instead of “1 5-7- 198?“ V 3) Learned counsel appearing for the respondente submit that this petition is squarelycovered by a decision of High Court of Madh‘ya PETITIONER Vedprakash, aged about 21 years, S/o Shri Makhanlal, Rlo village Sakara, Block Chhura, Tahsil Gariyaband. District Raipur (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhauisgarh, thraugh Secretary, School Educatidn Department, D.K.S_ Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur (CG). Pradesh in Rajbaii Singh vs. Board af Secondary Education, Bhopal‘. 4) In the mattar of Rajbali Singh (supra), the identical provision i.e. Ruies 8 and 9 of the MP. Date of Birth (Entries in the Schaoi Register) Ruies, 1973 was under cansideration. The same ruies have been adapted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the interpretation given by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is applieable to the facts of the present case also, {7“ 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the in view of the deeision in the matter of Rajbali singh (supra), nothing survives in this matter for adjudication. 6) Aocordingly, the petition stands dispoeed of. 7) Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. l I . Sd/— I _\ Saush K. Agnihotri f \\ Judge ,, ‘; Gowri ‘2001 (5) mPHT 165 /