g § /, M” wf 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (C) No. €03é OF 2011. PETITIONER : /Damroodhar Jain, S / o. Shri Punit Ram Jain, aged about 23 yearS, Occupation Student, R/ o. Vinage Thana Bodi, Post Dumarpani, Tahsi1 Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT : / Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Through Secretary Pension Bada, Raipur [c.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MW W, M #M‘ ,_,...._— Present: HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR Pf WRIT PETITION (C) No. 5036 of 2011 Damrocdhar Jain. PETITION ER VERSUS Chhallisgarh Board of Secondarv Education. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JINDIA RESPONDENTS SB: Hon” ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Shri Rajesh Kumar Shanna. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent. x ORDER ORAL (Passed on 30 day of August, 201 1) By this petition. the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for correction ofhis date of birth in the class 10m marksheet. Shn' Shanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner passed his High School Certificate Examination th (class 10 ) from the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, (for short ‘the Board’) in the year 2005. In the marksheet provided by the Board, the date of birth has wrongly been mentioned as 29.02.1987. which ought to have been 29.02.1988. Thus, the petitioner tiled an application on 08.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) which has been rej ected by the respondent. Per contra, Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for therespondent submits that the petitioner has taken more than three years to raise this issue when the Board has decided not to entertain any application for correction ofdate ofbirth if the same is made aiter a period ofthreo years. Accordingly, no amendment/correction can be made. In support of his contention. learned counsel relies on a \§ decision ofthe High Court ofMadhya Pradesh, i.e. Rqz’bali Sing/1 vi Board ofSecondary Education, Bhopall . 4. I have heard leaiiied counsel appearing for the pzmies, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the pleadings, it is found that the petitioner has made the application to the respondent on 08.08.2011, Le. alter six years ofreceiving of the mark-sheet of class 10m (Annexure P/2) . The petitioner has further not indicated anything whether he has received any response from any authority at any point oftime. In Rajbali’, learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya U! Pradesh has observed as under: “‘7. 0n bare reading of the aforesaid Rules it is absolutely clear that certain stages are provided for correction or change in the date ofbitth. Rule 7 9 makes it categorically clear that no application in regard to date of birth shall be entertained either under Rule 7 or 8 after the form for the Board’s examination at the end of secondary level of education has been sent to the Board or after the student has left the school. ifthe student has not pursued education upto the end of secondary standard. Thus, the school authorities have no power to rectify the mistake after the forms are sent to the Board. On a perusal of the Rules, it is graphically clear that there is no provision for correction of date of birth by the Board. In absence of any provision in the Rules the Board is entitled under law to provide guidelines for correction of date of birth. The Board has framed guidelines which have been brought on record as Annexure P-2. The said guidelines provide that on compliance of certain formalities there can be rectification ofthe date of birth. It has been laid down therein that the prayer for rectification or correction of date of birth would not be accepted after three years. Submission of Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel is that in absence of any limitation in the Rules the Board could not have provided a period of t l ‘ 2001 ('2) MPLJ 276 limitation in the guidelines. In my considered opinion as the Rules do not deal with the peliod of limitation the Board has the authority to stipulate a time limit for correction of the date of bitth and I do not perceive any error in such a provlmon.” 6. This Court, in Sud/7W Ram Bhagat v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Alandal Raipur & Another”), relying on Rajbalil, wherein similar facts were involved, took the same view and dismissed the petition. 7. Thus, the mistake: if any, which crept in the mark-sheet issued in 3 March-April, 2005 cannot be corrected at this stage by issuing a writ in favour ofthe petitioner and no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge i~ 2009 (s) CGLJ 103