IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6616 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.10.2009. Sh. Bhupinder Singh --Petitioner Versus Central Board of Secondary Education and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. J.S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Saral Dattu, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.2. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was student of respondent no.2 school in the year 2005. It is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 29.6.1989 as per the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar, Births & Deaths, Punjab, Chandigarh. A copy of the said Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority is placed on record as Annexure P-1. At the time of the admission of the petitioner in the said school also his date of birth was recorded as 29.6.1989 and the same continued at the time of his leaving the school. This fact is evident from the certificate (Annexure P-2), placed on record. The petitioner applied for the issue of passport and his date of birth for the said passport is also reflected as 29.6.1989. As a student of respondent no.2 school the petitioner appeared for secondary school examination conducted by respondent no.1. In the secondary school examination certificate issued by respondent no.1, the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 26.9.1989 instead of 29.6.1989. On finding this discrepancy the petitioner approached respondent no.2 vide his application dated 3.9.2008 seeking CWP. No. 6616 of 2009 -2- correction of the date of birth. Respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 8.9.2008 requested the respondent no.1 through its Regional Officer to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 26.9.1989 to 29.6.1989 as per the entry available in the records of respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 vide its communication dated 23.12.2008 rejected the request of the school for correction of the date of birth on the solitary ground that the representation for correction has not been initiated within two years of declaration of the result. The petitioner, thereafter, served a legal notice (Annexure P-10) and receiving no reply the present petition has been filed seeking a direction for the correction of his date of birth in the records of respondent no.1 and the secondary school examination certificate, issued to the petitioner. On being put to notice both the respondents have filed separate replies. The stand of respondent no.1 is the same as in the rejection letter (Annexure P-9). However, respondent no.2 has supported the claim of the petitioner regarding the actual date of birth. It is however, stated that at the time of filling the form for 10th class examination the petitioner himself mentioned his date of birth as 26.9.1989, though, the forms were forwarded by the school to the respondent no.1. It is, however not disputed that the date of birth recorded in the records of respondent no.2-school is 26.9.1989. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, respondent no.1 has relied upon the bye laws 69.2 of the Examination Bye Laws, 1995 framed by the respondent no.1-Board. The said Bye Law reads as under:- “ 69.2 Change/Correction in Date of Birth. (i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the CWP. No. 6616 of 2009 -3- school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board. (ii) Such correction in Date of Birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidates/application form of the candidate for the examination. (iii) Request for correction in Date of Birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School along with attested copies of: (a) application for admission of the candidate to the school. (b) portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been made; and (c) the School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at the time of admission. (iv) The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of School along with documents mentioned in byelaws 69.2 (iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within two years of the date of declaration of result of Class X examination. No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of two years. This will be effective from the examination to be held in March, 1995.” Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-Board has argued that in terms of the aforesaid bye laws the correction is permissible only, if, the application is made within 2 years in terms of 69.2 (iv) of the aforesaid bye laws. CWP. No. 6616 of 2009 -4- From the perusal of the aforesaid bye laws it appears that no change in the date of birth can be made once recorded except corrections of the typographical and other errors consistent with the school record. It is also provided that where the school record is corrected after the application form of the candidate is submitted to the Board, no correction in Board's record shall be made. In the present case the petitioner's date of birth was recorded at the time of his admission in the respondent no.2-school as 29.6.1989. It continued to be so in the school record. However, it appears that at the time of filling the application form the error crept in and instead of mentioning 29.6.1989 it was wrongly mentioned as 26.9.1989. As a matter of fact the figure “9” in the date changed with the figure “6” for the month inadvertently and that continued in the certificate, issued by the Board after the examination. Various documents like the date of birth certificate issued under the Births & Deaths Certificate (Annexure P-1), the certificate of admission and withdrawal issued by the respondent no.2- school and the passport reflect the correct and actual date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 29.6.1989. Due to inadvertent error in the application form for examination the date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the records of respondent no.1-Board as 26.9.1989 instead of 29.6.1989. The bye law 69.2 permits such a correction. It is specifically stated in the writ petition that this error came to the notice of the petitioner when the petitioner intended to go abroad for higher education and immediately the school was approached for correction and the matter was taken up with the respondent no.1-Board. The actual date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 29.6.1989 is not in dispute and is established from various contemporary record. The clerical CWP. No. 6616 of 2009 -5- error can be corrected in terms of bye law 69.2. Denial of such correction by respondent no.1-Board on account of so called limitation is not permissible. Petitioner has specifically pleaded that discrepancy came to his notice while preparing to go abroad. Otherwise in all other documents including his passport the correct date of birth is recorded. In such a situation limitation should start from the date of knowledge.. There is another aspect; petitioner can be beneficiary of wrong date of birth as it gives him benefit of 3 months but he wants actual date to be incorporated. This clearly proves his bonafide. This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and respondent no.1-Board is directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the secondary school examination certificate dated 20.8.2006 (Annexure P-4) as 29.6.1989 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall return original certificate to the Board, if, so desired to enable the Board to issue fresh certificate. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.10.2009 lucky