@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No.2059l201‘0 PETITIONER Sewa Ram Sahu S/o Late C R Sahu Aged about 54 years R/o Quarter No 92/E Risali’Sector, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Board of Secondary Education, Through its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Secondary Board Education Department, Raipur, ( Chhattisgarh 2 The Principai, Government Higher Secondary Schooi, Anda (Gandhi Nagar), District Durg, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. ORDER (30.04.2010) sun". KUMAR SINHA, J. Hed. ar Petitioner — Sewa Ram Sahu has fiied this petition for quashing the circular dated 11.02.2004 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.1. He has also prayed for quashing the communication dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P/2), whereby, it has been informed to the petitioner that his date of birth in the mark sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971 cannot be changed, as the application filed by him for ’ correction of date of birth in the said mark sheet was filed after 38 years of the declaration of the result i.e.’ on 07.08.2009. The petitioner appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 1971 He passed the same With third diViSion 7/\ ,vr: @ WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2059 of 2010 The mark sheet was issued to the petitioner in the year 1971 itseif, in which, his date of birth is mentioned as 05.07.4953. The petitioner claims that his actual date of birth is 05.07.1955, therefore, he appiied for correction of his date of birth on 07.08.2009. That is to say that the petitioner applied for correction of his date of birth after about 38 years. His said appiication was dismissed by the Board vide order- Annexure P/2, taking the ground that the petitioner has applied for- correction after such a long period and according to the Circular of the Board, they have fixed the criteria that the application for correction of date of birth would be considered, if it is filed within a period of 3 years from the date of declaration of the result. The challenge to the circular dated 11.2.2004 (Annexure P/1), in view of the decision of Raibali Sinqh —Vs- Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, 2001 (5) M.P.H.T. 165 and other judgments of this Court filed along with the writ petition, is baseless and Annexure P/2 is a communication simplicitor. The petition, therefore, in pith and substance, is for correction of date of birth of the petitioner after about 38 years. The petitioner has not explained as to why he kept quite for such a long period and applied for correction of date of birth only on 07.08.2009. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in tiling the writ petition for this camouflaged substantial relief of correction of date of birth in the mark sheet of the petitioner, which was issued to him in the year 1971. lt is well settled that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary and if the Court finds that there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution may be rejected. In the present case, the petitioner has not at all explained the ' delay for not approaching his concerned authority for about 38 years. ln fact, the alleged cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner in the year 1971 itself, but the petitioner has agitated his grievance for the first time on 07,082009, when he made an application to the concerned 3 WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2059 of 2010 authority of the Board of Secondary Education for correction of his date of birth in the mark sheet issued to him in the year 1971. Since there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the appropriate authority as also this Court, and the same has not been expiained at all, i am not inclined to admit this petition for further hearing. Accordingly, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on account of delay and laches. However, the petitioner is free to avail other appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- shyna