HIGH COURT OF CHHAT : B1LASPUR Petitioner Resppncients Writ Petifion No. 2846 of 2005 Punit Yadav, aged about 20 years, S./o. Balchandra Yadav, Rto. Viitage Bangaon, Thsi! Kondagaon, Dist. Bastar Versus 1) Chhaffisgarh Madhiramik Shiksha Mandal (Chhattisgarh Secondary Board of Educaiion Raipur (CG), through Seeretary, Chhattisgarh Secondary Boar of Education, Raipur (CG). 2) Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal through Secretary, Bhopai.M.P. 3) The Principal, Govt. (T.W.D.) Model Higher Secondary Schoo!, Badedongar, Pharasgaon, Bastar (CG). 0/Vrit Petition under Articte 226/227 of Constitution of tndia) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Saiish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Gupta, counsei for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORAL ORD6R (Passed on this 14 day of Novemb&r. 2008) With the consent of feamed counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finaliy. 2) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a di'rection to the respondent No.1 to eorrect fhe date of birthof the petitioner in ths mark-sheet of Htgh School Certificate Examination (10+2) 200,1. 3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned In the mark-sheet of ^ High School Certificate Examination (10+2) 2001 as 8-4-1984 whersas artua! date of birth ofthe petfiioner is 3-4-1985. The petitioner accordingly made an application before the concerned authorities, w^iich was forwarded by the Principal, Govt. (T.W.D.) Model H.S. Schooi, Bade Donger Pharasgaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) on 3-3-2005 (Annexure P/4). 4) The aforesaid appiication was rejected by the respondent Board on 28-4-2005 on the ground that the applicaiion for correcflon of date ef birth was made after a period of three years which is not permissibie as p&r •^ 'E ?t - 2- Madhya Pradesh Date of Birth (Entries in the Scl-io6! Register) Ruies, 1973 (forshort, "the Rules 1973"), which has been adapted by the State of Chhattisgarh. 5) Leamed counsei appeannfl for the respondent Board submits that the petitioner has made an appticatlon for correction of date of birth after a period of three years of issuance of mark-sheet. Learned counsel submits that this matter is squareiy covered by the decision of ttie High Courtof Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Rajbati Singh Vs. Board ofSecondary Education, Bhopa! decided on 29-1-2001 inWritPetition No. 6293 of; (Annexure R1-1). Leamed counsei further submits that the respondent Board by order dated 11-2-2004 has made it clear that any appiicatton made after three years from the date of declaration shali not be entortainsd. A copy of the order dated 11-2-2004 passed by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, has been produced before thte Court and the same is taken on record. 6) ]n the matter of Rajbali Singh (supra), theidentical provisions i.e., Rules 8 & 9 of the Ruies 1973 were under consideration. The same rules have been adapted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the interpretation given by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is applicabte to the facts of the presentcase. 7) Learned counset appearing for the petitioner su&»nitsthat in view of the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh In ttie matter of Rajbali Sinflh (supra) nothing survives in this petition for adjuciication. 8) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.'1^°' s^^e