IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.903 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 7559 of 2003 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 4981 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.903 of 2010 ==================================================== Abhishek Kumar S/O Shri Shyam Nandan Sahay R/O Dwarikapuri, Road No.3, Hanuman Nagar, P.S.Patrakar Nagar, Distt-Patna. …. …. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar School Examination Board P.S. Kotwali, Patna-17, through its Secretary 2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board Patna, P.S.Kotwali, Patna- 17 3. The Assistant Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board Patna-17 4. The Principal, Zila School Motihari Town and Distt-Motihari. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : None For the Respondent Nos 1 to3: Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4. 30.8.2010. Interlocutory Application No. 4981 of 2010: - This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 1396 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The dispute arises from the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner to correct his date of birth recorded in the records of the Bihar School Examination Board. It is the claim of the appellant that his date of - 2 - birth is 19th July 1979, which has erroneously been recorded in the record of the Bihar School Examination Board as that of 1st March 1977. His request for correction has been rejected. Therefore, the writ petition. The learned single Judge has noted that the petitioner passed the S.S.C. examination in the year 1991. If his claim were accepted he would have secured school admission at a tender age of less than two years and passed S.S.C. examination at the age of less than 12 years. His claim was ex facie unacceptable. We agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The delay of 1396 days in filing the appeal has also not been satisfactorily explained. The Application for condonation of delay is rejected. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)