HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.6195 of 2009 ‘ RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: Mohammad Azaz Khan, Slo Mohammad Sultan, aged about 35 ' years, R/o Akaltara, Tahsil, Akaltara, District Janjgir (CG) Versus State of Chhamsgam Through the Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Board of Secondary Education Raipur, Through: the Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Present:— Shn Rakesh Pandey. counsel for the petitioner Shn Vinay Hant Deputy Advocate General wrth Shri S K Mishra Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent Division Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. ORAL ORDER (21 1-2010) The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 7 8 and 9 of. the Chhattisgarh Janm Tithi (Pathshala Ke Register Me Pravishti) Niyam, 1973 (for short ‘the Rules‘) on the ground that the same is ultra vire§ Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts in nut shell are that the date of birth of the petitioner in the g mark-sheet of Class-10‘" and mass-12’“ is recotded as 28-3-1974. He passed class-10‘“ examination in the year 1993 and class-712‘"? examination in‘the year 1995. The petitioner applied for correction of his date of birth in the mark sheet of class-5‘“ and class-8‘“ to the -‘ District Education Officer and his date of birth was amendedvto 24—3-' 1977 (Annexure—P/4 & P/5). He was also issued birth certificate by the ‘ Registrar of Births and Deaths showing his amended date of birth vide Annexure-P/6. However, his application for correction of his date of 3 ; birth in his mark sheet of class-10‘" was rejected by respondent No.2 in ' the year 2009 on the ground that the application was filed after 3 years from the date of dectaration of result on the basis of decisions rendered by this Court ~in‘Writ Petition No.2845/2005 (Punit Yadav Versus Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Manda! and others) (Annexure—P/a). . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has impugned the above rules on the ground that the same i3; unreasonable, irrational; illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no reasonable, justitication for not entertaining the application for correction of date of birth under Rule 7 and 8 of the Rules beyond time limit prescribed under Rule 9 and‘the aforesaid provision is irrational, unreasonable and illegal. ln‘ appropriate cases, where a candidate assigns good reasons and a reasoned explanation for‘correction of date of birth, the date of birth should be corrected at any time after verification. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. . The Rules were framed for the purposes of registration of date ofybirth of any boylgirl in the school. . Rule 3 of the Rules envisages that the parents or guardian, white admitting his ward student in a recognized school for the tirst time,_ shall declare the date of birth of such-student in writing in a prescribed proforma by appropriately putting his signature. Where the parents or guardian are illiterate, in that case, he shall put his thumb impression ‘ duly attested by a responsible literate person. . Rule 4 provides that the date of birth declared under Rule 3 shall be , recorded in date of birth register maintained by the said school‘with the signature of the head of the institution. The declaration submitted by the parents in a_particular academic session shall be preserved as V r permanent record after putting serial number thereon. Rule 7 provides for correction of entry according to which if parents or : guardian notice any error in the date of birth mentioned in the progress report, or any document of the school or the register in comparison to ' z , 3$ their declaration at the time of first admission, they may submit application to the head of the institution. if there is any ciericai error found, the same shail be corrected in accordance with entry in the originai deciaration and communicated about the same to the parents r ~ or guardians. 9. Rule 8 deals with the procedure of cortecttng the date of birth recorded under Ruie 3. 10, Rule 9 prescribes that no application for correction of date of birth ; under Rule 7 and 8 would be entertained if the same is tiled at the end of session after the examination form has been forwarded tothe Board for higher secondary level examination or after the student has quit the school beforecompleting hishigher secondary education. 11. From the facts averred in the petition, it is observed that the petitioner 93 passed his class-10'“ examination i'n the year 1993. and class-12"?f ' examination in‘the year 1995. From the documents of AnnexureP/4 and P/5, it appears that the District Education Officer has corrected the j. date of birth in the Primary School markgsheet and Middle School mark sheet vide Annexure-P/4 and Pl5. However, there is no pleading in the ‘ petition as to when corrections were carried out. Even the documents are undated. The petitioner applied for correction of his date of birth in = the mark sheet of ciass:10“‘ in the year 2009 and the same was ._ rejected vide order of Annexure-P/1 by the Board by referring tolthe’ judgment of the High Court passed in WP. No.2845 of 2005 ' (Annexure-P/3). l, 12, lt s settled law that the Court should exercise judicial restraint while judging constitutional validity of the statute and the delegated legislation and there is presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the statute aswell as delegated legislation. it is only when there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions or the parent statute in the j case of delegated legislation that the Court shouid declare it to be unconstitutional; {Hinsa Virodhak Sangh Versus Mirzapur Mott Kuresh Jamat and others [(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 33]}. i 13. In the instant case, the Rules specifically provide that the date of birth is to be recorded in the date of birth register on the basis of declaration made by the parents or wards of the student at the time of tirg admission. Rule 4 cast a duty upon the head of the institution to record z the date of birth in a register in a seriai order and maintain the said register safe as a permanent record. There is provision for correction ’- v of date of birth in the said register or any other document issued by the school on the basis of entry in the said register. The Rules also provide for correction of entry in the date of birth register on the basis of declaration under Rule 3. However, Rule 9 stipulates that application for correction of date of birth cannot be entertained by the V said school if it is submitted after examination form has been forwarded to the Board at the end of academic session or if the student has quit the school' without completing the higher secondary course. The above stipulation appears to be reasonable. 14. The contention of learned ocunsel for the petitioner that prescribing , time limit under Rule 9 for correction of date of birth and the record is irrational,'arbitrary and unreasonable cannot be accepted, as entries v regarding date of birth of a student are made only on the basis of written declaration made by the parentslward. It is also open to the candidate to apply for correction while he continues to study in the'said school. 15. In our view, the question as to what is the date of birth of an individuai cannot be left open for all time to come and, therefore, prescribing time frame for applying/for correction of date of birth is reasonable and justified. 16. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition and hold that Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Janm Tithi (Pathshala Ke Register Me Pravishti) Niyam,‘ { . .‘SA/ - 1973 intra vires. Sd/— Sdl- J I R.N. CHANDRAKAR. Barve Dhirendra Mishra Judge .fndge