HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1505 of2002 PETITIONER : Ku. Safiya Bano, aged about 23 years, D/o Jahid Hussain, R/o West Chimiiri Distt. Korea (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretaiy Education Department, Raipur. 2. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education throu^i Secretary, Raipur. (WRIT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA) CSB: Hoii'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotrl, J.) Present : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate fcr the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State. Shri H.B. Agrawal. 8r. Advocate with Ms. Rinki Tamrakar^ Ad^ocate for llie respondent No. 2. PBALORDER (Passcd oa 16th day ofJsnuaiy, 2{M») Wifh the conseirt afthe parties.. fhe matter is tak^n up &)T hearijng iinaUy. 1. By this petition.the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 2 to correct fhe date of birth of the petitioner in fhe mark-sheet of High School Certfficate Examination (10+2)1995. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner ^ibmits tiiat Ifae date of birth of ^ fhe petitioner has wrongly been m^ntioned in the mark-sheet of Hi^i School Certfficate Examination (10+2) 1995 as 01.11.79 whereas actu^ date ofbirth of the petitioner is 01,07.79. The petitioner accordmgly approach^d the respondent No. 2/Board for correction in the mark sheet 3. The respondent/Board rejected the prayer ofthe petitioner on the ground that the prayer fbr correction of date of birtti was made after a period of three years which is not pemiissible as per Madhya Pradesh Date of Birtii (Etitries in the School Register) Rules, 1973 (fbr short, "the Rules 1973")^ which has been adapted by the State ofChhattisgarh. 4. Leamed counsel appearmg tbr Ihe respondent Board subnaits that the petitioner has made prayer for correction of date of hirfh after a period of three years of issuance of mark-sheet. Leamed counsel submits tiiat fhis matter is squarely covered by fhe decisioa of fhe High Court of Madhya Pradesh in fhe matter ofRajbali Singh Vs. Board ofSecondary Education, Bhopal decided on 29-1-2001 m Writ Petition No. 6293 of 2000 (Aimexure Rl-1). Leamed counsel further submits that the respond^it Board by order dated 11-2-2004 has made it clear fhat any application made after tiiree years irom the date of declaration shall not be entertained. 5. In the matter of RajbaU Singh (supra), fhe identical provisions i.e., Rules 8 & 9 offhe Rules 1973 were under consideration. The same rules have been adapted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the mterpretation given by fhe Hi^i Court ofMadhya Pradesh is applicable to the facts offhe present case. 6. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that m view of fhe decision ofthe High Court ofMadhyaPradeshmfhematterofRajbatiSintgh (supra) nothing survives inthis petition for adjudication. 7. Accordingly, tfais petition stands disposed of No order asto c^sts. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge