IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9189 of 2004 Prem Prakash Pankaj, son of Sri Yadunandan Yadav, At Bhawanipur, P.S. Pratapganj, District Supaul. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary , Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Bihar School Examination Board through its Chairman, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Officer On Special Duty/Deputy Secretary/Joint Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Headmaster,Public Uccha Vidyalaya, Pratapganj, Supaul. Respondents ----------- For B.S.E.B. : Mr.Ajit Pratap Singh,Advocate For the State : A.C. to G.A.4 ---------- 6. 01.07.2011 This writ petition is filed with a prayer for making correction of date of birth in the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board to the petitioner wherein his date of birth has been stated as 19.02.1969. He claims that the correct date of birth is 19.02.1972 as stated in his Admit Card for appearing in the matriculation examination 1985(Annexure-1). Learned Counsel for the Respondent Board raised objection on the ground that the writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay inasmuch as the provisional certificate has been granted soon after the results are declared. It is an admitted fact of record that the original certificate was issued to the petitioner sometimes in the year 1990. It appears that the Respondent Board is finding difficulty in making the correction as requested by the petitioner in view of certain over writings in the date of birth as appearing in the Admission Register. In view of the peculiar facts of this case it is difficult for this Court to arrive at a finding at this stage without reference to the Admission Register etc., with regard to the correct date of birth. It cannot be denied that the petitioner is being put to difficulties by reason of the authorities concerned not taking a final decision in this matter. This petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in its entirety and pass an order stating detailed reasons in case the petitioner’s claim is not acceded to. Such order should be passed within a period of three months hereof within which time any enquiry etc., if required to be made should be completed and the petitioner be heard in the matter if he so desires. psc ( Vikash Jain, J. )