Q?) lN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATHSGA WRIT PETmON (C) No. é g 2 i /2009 / f Rojesh Singh S/o Shri Domon Singh Thefhwar, Aged About 23 years, R/o Village # Torra, District Durg (C.G.) ' PETITIONER VERSUS 1. /The S’rote ofChhaHisgoh, Through : The Secremry. Education Department, D.K.S. Bhgwon, Montrcuoyo, Roipur (C.G.) 2. The Chhottisgoh Secondary Education Board, Raipur, Through The Secretary, Byron Bazar Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTtCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OF lNDlA. brJhisAAldL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.6821 OF 2009 PETITIONER Rajesh Singh Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Satish Chandra Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.1. . Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. R ESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 06th day of July, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 13/10/2009 (Annexure P—8) sent by the Assistant Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, by which the case of the petitioner has not been considered for correction of his date of birth. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 24/4/1986 and the same has been mentioned in the mark sheets of his Class 5th & 8th, Which is evident from Annexure P-1‘ & P-2 respectively. However, in the 10”“ Class mark sheet issued by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, (High School Certificate Examination (10+2), 2002) it has been mentioned as 24/6/1986 (Annexure P—3). After having come to know about the said mistake in the year 2009,, acCording to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation for correction of his date of birth before the respondent authorities vide Annexure P-5 along with affidavit, which has been rejected and communicated to the petitioner on 13/10/2009. Thus, this petition. ' i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieading and the‘documents appended thereto. The State Government has framed the ruies namely; Madhya Pradesh Date of Birth (Entries in the School Register) Rules, 1973 (for short “the Rules, 1973”). The correction or change in the date of birth is provided under Rules 8 and 9V ofthe Rules, 1973. Rules 9 reads as under: “9. Restriction on Entertaining the Application for correction in date of birth : No application for correction in date of birth recorded in school records shall be entertained under rules 7 and 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, if the student has not pursued education upto the end of secondary standard." On bare perusal of Rule 9 ofthe Rules, 1973, it appears that no application for correction of date of birth recorded in the school records including the Board’s examination shall be entertained after the student has left the school. The petitioner was granted 10““ Class mark sheet in the year 2002 in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 24/6/1986 and left the school in the year 2002. The petitioner ought to have raised his grievances about the vvrong mentioning of his date of birth within the stipulated period as prescribed by the respondent authorities, but he has raised the objection only in the year 2009 i.e. after lapse of about 7 years. V Rule 9 of the Rules, 1973 clearly prohibits entertaining an application for correction of date of birth after the student has left the‘school. The application was made in the year 2009, which is not permissible under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1973 without questioning the validity of the \ l i same. Thus, no order be passed by this Court In the resuft, contrary t! provisions of Rule 9 may It . Satish q K. ,Sdl— Agnihatr: A V )A,=A‘—‘—__“'—'/\ L w 0