IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6994 of 2010 1. Arun Kumar S/O Shri Bharat Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.- Kahla, P.S. Barauli, Distt.- Gopalganj Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Human Resource Department, Bihar Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar Secondary Examination Board, Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary Of Bihar Secondary School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal, D.V.C.High School, Chandrapura, P.S. Distt.- Bokaro, Jharkhand ----------- 3. 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Bihar School Examination Board and for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate as 10.1.1976 and desires it to be corrected to read as 1.3.1978. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 10.1.1979. As he did not meet the eligibility requirement of 14 years of age when he was to appear for the matriculation examination, the date of birth was fictionally corrected to read as 1.3.1978 to enable him to fulfill the requirement for appearing at the examination held in the year 1992. But the respondents have on the contrary issued him a matriculation certificate recording a wholly incorrect date of birth as 10.1.1976. The 2 petitioner had represented for the purpose along with one Santosh Kumar Verma. As revealed from the counter affidavit it was directed to be corrected and was in fact so done along with Shree Santosh Kumar Verma. It is therefore difficult to appreciate from where the respondents have invoked the date 10.1.1976 after the correction was made by them. Counsel for the Board submitted that his date of birth in the school register of D.A.V.+2 High School, Chandrapura at Bokaro is recorded as 10.1.1979. The date of birth of the petitioner in the tabulation register maintained by the Board in the year 1993 was manually entered as 10.1.1976. The records were old and are not traceless. The correction in the case of Santosh Kumar Verma was made in the year 1995. The date of birth of a person is primarily a question of fact. If this question of fact has to be determined in a writ proceeding, it can be only on basis of uncontroverted documents. If there are documents disclosing different dates of birth, more particularly three in nature as in the present case, it becomes a disputed question of fact. On the own showing of the petitioner his actual date of birth is 10.1.1979. The petitioner cannot have an actual 3 date of birth and a fictional date of birth. The entire foundation of the writ petition is based on a claim that it was changed fictionally to read as 1.3.1978 to avoid the rigours of the law which prevented him from appearing in the matriculation examination. The entire foundation of the claim in the writ petition arises from an arrangement to evade the law. No Court can be a part in aid of the same as held in (2004) 12 SCC 83 (G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew) at Pargraph-10 as follows:- “10………No court can come to the aid of the party in an illegal transaction. It is settled law that in such cases the loss must be allowed to lie where it falls……” It is difficult for the Court to make any pronouncement whether his date of birth is 10.1.1979 or 1.3.1978 or 10.1.1976. If the former is the actual date of birth on his own showing it should hold the field with its attendant consequences. The Court cannot grant relief or make observations based on an arrangement so arrived at to evade the law by directing the date of birth to be corrected to read as 1.3.1978. The tabulation register of 1993 records his date of birth as 10.1.1976. The school register as per 4 information sought by the Board records his date of birth as 10.1.1979. If the petitioner at the stage of pursing higher education mentioned his date of birth to bring it in accord with the date of eligibility to appear in the matriculation examination as 1.3.1978 that is of no help to him in the present claim. If the matriculation certification was issued to him as far back as 1992 or 1993 and the erroneous recording of the date of birth with which the petitioner is aggrieved today was a cause of action then available to him on that former point of time itself, it was for him to have been more vigilant for the protection of his rights and interests. If the date of birth of Santosh Kumar Verma was corrected in 1995, displaying alertness on his part, the petitioner forms a class by himself seeking the same relief belatedly in the year 2010 by this writ petition. Disputed questions of fact therefore cannot be examined in a writ petition. Whether the date of birth of the petitioner shall be 10.1.1976 or 10.1.1979 or which is 1.3.1978, is a matter which can only be adjudicated 5 appropriately in a civil proceeding where evidence may also be led including oral apart from documents in support of the same. The Court therefore finds no merits in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)