Telangana High Court
J.Y. Rohit vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 30 August, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.12977 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard Mr. D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. A. Chaya Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application of petitioner seeking correction of date of birth as 16.08.1993 instead of 16.08.1991 as illegal and in violation of order dated 10.12.2014 in W.P. No.12765 of 2013 and Examination Bye-law No.69.2 of respondent No.1, and for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to alter / correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1993 instead of 16.08.1991 in the Secondary School Examination Certificate in terms of the Certificate issued by respondent No.2.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was born on 16.08.1993 at Government Civil Hospital, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, and the competent authority i.e., the Greater Hyderabad Municipal 2 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 Corporation, respondent No.2 herein, had issued Date of Birth Certificate mentioning his date of birth as 16.08.1993.
i) The father of the petitioner is an employee of Indian Railways, and in terms of his service, he was transferred to number of places all over India. Therefore, his maternal grandfather undertook admission procedures for his entry in the Primary School. While admitting in the School, his maternal grandfather wrongly entered his date of birth in the Admission Application as 16.08.1991 instead of 16.08.1993.
ii) At the time of application for Secondary School Examination Certificate, the School Authorities entered his date of birth as 16.08.1991. Therefore, his date of birth was wrongly carried even in the Secondary Scholl Certificate (SCC) issued by respondent No.1 on 29.05.2007. His actual date of birth is 16.08.1993, but not as 16.08.1991. It appears that due to the said wrong entry, he became over-aged by two (02) years, resulting in effecting his career prospects. He could not obtain authentic date of birth certificate issued by respondent No.2 so as to seek alteration of date of birth within the prescribed time limit of five (05) years from the date of 3 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 declaration of results as per Bye-Law No.69.2 (iv) of the Bye-laws of respondent No.1.
iii) After obtaining date of birth certificate issued by respondent No.2 in January, 2013, he had approached respondent No.1 seeking correction of date of birth. The same was not considered by respondent No.1 on the ground that there was delay of approximately 246 days in filing the application. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.12765 of 2013, and this Court vide order dated 10.12.2014 allowed the writ petition directing respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's application. Respondent No.1 having regard to the directions passed by this Court, rejected the application submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2015 on the ground of delay. Therefore, the petitioner herein had filed a Contempt Petition vide C.C. No.286 of 2016. However, this Court vide order dated 08.11.2019 closed the Contempt case on the ground that respondent No.1 has complied with the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 15.10.2015. Therefore, the order dated 15.10.2015 is illegal and arbitrary and also in violation of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.12765 of 2013. 4
KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 Respondent No.1 has not considered the certificate issued by respondent No.2.
4. Respondent No.1 herein had filed counter contending that as per the Date of Birth Certificate submitted by the petitioner herein, at the time of admission into Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Senior Secondary School and Junior College, Cehnnai, which is issued by respondent No.2, his date of birth is mentioned as 16.08.1991, vide registration No.1188 and place of birth as Swapna Nursing Home, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The said application form was signed by the parent and not by guardian as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that his maternal grandfather had wrongly mentioned his date of birth as 16.08.1991 instead of 16.08.1993 is incorrect.
i) Respondent No.1 has not made any mistake in the records. The petitioner became overage by two (02) years, he intends to change his date of birth based on a new birth certificate issued by respondent No.2, which means the authentic birth certificate might also be available with the petitioner as the copy of the birth certificate having 5 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 shown the date of birth as 16.08.1991 had already produced while he was admitted in L.K.G. at the aforesaid school and college.
ii) As per bye-law No.69.2 (iv) of Examination Bye-laws, time limit prescribed for correction of date of birth is five (05) years from the date of declaration of results. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner herein has not submitted his application within the aforesaid time prescribed. Respondent No.1 has complied with the orders dated 10.12.2014 passed in W.P. No.12765 of 2013. Considering the said aspects only, this Court had closed the contempt case filed by the petitioner herein.
iii) On verification of records, it was found that there are two birth certificates with two different birth years i.e., 1991 and 1993 were issued in favour of the petitioner by the same Municipal Corporation i.e., respondent No.2. Therefore, genuineness of the date of birth certificate issued by the GHMC dated 13.02.2010 which was submitted by the petitioner along with his application for correction of date of birth, specifying his date of birth as 16.08.1993 is in doubt and, hence, respondent No.1 had passed the rejection order dated 15.10.2015.
6
KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020
iv) There is abnormal delay in filing the application seeking correction of date of birth. Every Education Department in the State / Union Territory had framed the age limit (i.e., minimum and maximum) for admission into the School. These Rules also followed by the Schools situated in the respective States. In accordance with the same, the Board had also made provision in the Examination Bye- laws as Rule 6.1 (a) (iii) and it says that satisfies the requirement of age limits (minimum and maximum) as determined by the State / Union Territory Government and applicable to the place where the school is located.
v) Change of date of birth is not only direct violation of the Rules framed by the State Education Department, but also not satisfying the above said Rules of Examination Byelaws of the Board. No wrong entry regarding date of birth was made from school records to the Board Certificate. These are consistent with X Class Certificate of the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.1 had rejected the request of the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2015, and there is no error in it.
7
KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020
5. Mr. D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that respondent No.1 had rejected the application of the petitioner in utter violation of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2014 in W.P. No.12765 of 2013. Respondent No.1 has not considered the certificate issued by the GHMC, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 16.08.1993. Therefore, the rejection order is illegal.
6. On the other hand, Mrs. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that respondent No.1 has considered the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and also considered the documentary evidence and rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2015 and there is no error in it.
7. The aforesaid facts and rival submissions would reveal that the petitioner is seeking correction of his date of birth as 16.08.1993 instead of 16.08.1991 on the ground that his father is in employee in Railways and in terms of his employment, he was transferred number of times to various places all over India. Therefore, his maternal grand-father undertook admission procedure for entering into primary 8 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 school. He could not get correct date of birth from respondent No.2 and, therefore, there is delay in filing the application seeking correction of date of birth. Ultimately he had approached respondent No.1 in January, 2013 seeking correction of date of birth, but the same was not considered. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.12765 of 2013 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2014. This Court directed respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's request for correction of his date of birth, after satisfying itself of the genuineness of the certificate issued by the GHMC and, thereafter, passes appropriate orders on the request of the petitioner in accordance with law. Liberty was also granted to respondent No.1 to obtain any information with regard to the date of birth certificate, including the certified copies thereof issued by the GHMC in order to satisfy itself that the said date is correct. According to respondent No.1, in compliance of the said order, it had passed the rejection order dated 15.10.2015. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had not considered the aforesaid directions and, therefore, he has filed a Contempt Case vide C.C. No.286 of 2016. The same was closed on 08.11.2019 on the ground that 9 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 respondent No.1 had complied with the aforesaid orders by passing order dated 15.10.2015.
8. It is relevant to note that in the said order dated 08.11.2019 in C.C. No.286 of 2016, this Court had considered the contention made by respondent No.1 that in order to consider the request of the petitioner for change of his date of birth, it called for information from the schools where the petitioner studied, and in the said enquiry, respondent No.1 found that the parents of the petitioner signed the declaration forms of the petitioner at the time of his admission in the said schools and in those declarations, the father of the petitioner, who is a Central Government Employee working for Railways, categorically mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1991. Therefore, the request of the petitioner was rejected.
9. It is needless to mention that the said fact of signing of the declaration forms by the father of the petitioner at the time of admission in the said schools was not brought to the notice of this Court while deciding the matter in W.P. No.16765 of 2013 and, therefore, said fact was not considered by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. However, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner 10 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 to obtain any information with regard to the date of birth certificate, including the certified copies thereof issued by the GHMC in order to satisfy itself that the said date is correct and, therefore, respondent No.1 had conducted enquiry and found the aforesaid fact. Considering the said fact only, this Court had closed the said contempt case.
10. In support of the aforesaid contention, respondent No.1 had filed application for admission submitted by the petitioner with Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Senior Secondary School, which is signed by the father of the petitioner declaring the date of the birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1991. In the said application form, it is also specifically mentioned that the father of the petitioner had produced the birth certificate. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot contend that the job of his father is a transferable job and, therefore, his maternal grandfather undertook the admission procedure for entering into the Primary School and wrongly entered his date of birth as 16.08.1991 instead of 16.08.1993. The said contention of the petitioner is factually incorrect and unsustainable. At the cost of 11 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 repetition, as stated above, the said fact was not considered by this Court while deciding the writ petition in W.P. No.12765 of 2013.
11. It is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, it had called for the records from the Delhi Public School, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, where the petitioner had passed X Class, wherein, respondent No.1 herein had requested to furnish the details of the admission sought by the petitioner at the time of admission into the School. The said school vide letter dated 09.07.2015 informed the CBSE that the candidate had taken admission in Class VI on 16.04.2002. The enrolment form duly filled along with Transfer Certificate from previous school was furnished by the School. On perusing the same, it can be seen that the said candidate had taken admission in Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, on 16.04.2002. At the time of admission in the School, the candidate had written the date of birth as 16.08.1991. The school had also furnished the transfer certified issued by Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Senior Secondary School and Junior College, Chennai, which is dated 18.06.2002 and in the said Transfer Certificate, the date of birth is 12 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 mentioned as 16.08.1991. Then, the record pertaining to the petitioner was called from the said School, and the said school vide letter dated 03.08.2015 furnished the application form, extract of admission cum withdrawal Register and Birth Certificate of the candidate issued by the GHMC, respondent No.2 herein. Therefore, on verification of records, it is found that there are two birth certificates with two different birth years i.e., 1991 and 1993 were issued in favour of the petitioner by the same Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the genuineness of the date of birth certificate issued by the GHMC dated 13.02.2010 which was submitted by the petitioner along with his application for correction of date of birth, specifying his date of birth as 16.08.1993, is in doubt and hence, respondent No.1 had passed the rejection order dated 15.10.2015.
12. It is also relevant to note that at the time of submission of the application seeking correction of date of birth to respondent No.1, the petitioner was prosecuting Engineering Course and his father is a Railway Employee. Both of them are educated. Even then, there is abnormal delay in making the application with respondent No.1 seeking correction of date of birth. Moreover, the contention of the 13 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 petitioner that his maternal grandfather made admission of the petitioner in the Primary School and while taking admission, he had mentioned the date of birth wrongly is also factually incorrect. In fact, the father of the petitioner, a Railway Employee, had signed the application form declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1991.
13. It is relevant to note that bye-law No.69.2 (iv) of the Examination Bye-laws of respondent No.1 deals with 'change / correction in date of birth', which is 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 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 Photostat copies of:14
KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020
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 along with attested copy of the Certificate issued by the Municipal Authority, if available, as proof of Date of Birth submitted at the time of seeking admission; 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 five years of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever, shall be made on application submitted after the said period of five years."
The time prescribed for the said correction of date of birth is five (05) years from the date of declaration of the result. It also says that no correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of five (05) years.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a batch of cases in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/father Hari Singh) v. C.B.S.E.(Central Board of Secondary Education)1 considered the actions relating to correction/ change in the name, surname, date of birth of candidates or their parents in the certificates issued by 1 . Civil Appeal No.3905 of 2011 & batch, decided on 03.06.2021 15 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 respondent No.1 Board. In the said judgment, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court had framed the following five issues for consideration:
i) Whether the CBSE Examination Byelaws have the force of law?
ii) Whether examination byelaws impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 19 of the Constitution including fail the test of rationality for excessively restricting the scope of permissible corrections/changes?
iii) Whether the Board is obliged to carry out corrections/changes in the certificates issued by it owing to correction/updation of public records/documents which have statutory presumption of genuineness?
iv) Whether the examination byelaws in force on the date of examination conducted by CBSE or the date of consideration of the application for recording correction/change would be relevant? And, whether the effect of correction or change, as the case may be, will have retrospective effect from the date of issue of the original certificate?
v) Whether writ of mandamus issued for effecting corrections in CBSE certificates can be in the teeth of explicit provisions in the examination byelaws, without examining validity of the byelaws?
15. A few paragraphs of the said judgment are relevant and the same are extracted below:
"114. Arguendo, the Examination Byelaws are not "law"
under Article 13, it would not affect the power of the Court to scrutinize them in reference to PartIII of the Constitution of India 16 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 as CBSE is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and all its actions are consequently subject to Part III."
"140. We, thus, hold that the provision regarding change of name "post publication of examination results" is excessively restrictive and imposes unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 19. We make it clear that the provision for change of name is clearly severable from those for corrections in name/date of birth and therefore, our determination shall not affect them except as regards the condition of limitation period, in terms of the aforesaid discussion and guidelines stated later."
"142. We may begin with Byelaws which were in force up to 2007 i.e., up to the 2007 amendment. Byelaw 69 dealt with "Changes in Board's Certificate" wherein Byelaw 69.1 covered "Changes and Corrections in Name" and 69.2 covered "Change/Correction in Date of Birth". On an understanding of the language adopted in the Byelaws, we must note at the very outset that the terms "correction" and "change" are not used interchangeably in the Byelaws. Whereas, the term "correction" denotes spelling errors, factual errors or typographical errors and the term "change"
denotes a complete change of name. For ready reference, a summary of the development of Examination Byelaws can be tabulated as follows:
x x x x x x"
"146. Similar provision is available for "correction" in date of birth, either on the basis of school records or on the basis of order of court. The word "change" is not used for date of birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of birth and there can only be a correction to make it consistent with school record or order of Court. It cannot be changed to replace the former with a fresh date 17 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 of one's choice. Be it noted, provisions relating to correction in date of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections. The restriction regarding limitation period shall be examined later, along with other provisions."
"148. Notably, the cases before us pertain to different periods. As aforesaid, the CBSE byelaws which existed prior to 2007 were different. The summary of the journey of the examination byelaws from 2007 till 2018 has been tabulated hitherto. The distinction between "correction" and "change" was always welldemarcated including prior to 2007. As regards the correction which could mean to carry out modification to make it consistent with school record but when it came to request for change of name of the candidate or his parents, that could be done only after complying with the preconditions specified therefor. However, when it came to change in the date of birth that was completely prohibited. Only correction regarding date of birth was permitted to be made consistent with the school record. And for which limitation of two years from declaration of result was specified. The requirement of two years cannot be considered as unreasonable restriction. The candidate and his parents are expected to be vigilant and to take remedial measures immediately after declaration of result of the candidate. That too for being made consistent with school record. The Board must follow the discipline of continuation of entries in the school record as it is vital for pursuing further and higher education including career opportunities by the candidate. Significantly, the position as obtained prior to 2007 did not provide for any time limit within which correction of candidate's name or of his parents was to be pursued. These restrictions are certainly reasonable restrictions while recognising the enabling 18 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 power of the Board to alter its record in the form of certificates issued to the candidate concerned to make it consistent with the school records or otherwise."
"170. The first is where the incumbent wants "correction" in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. As we have held there is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations. While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim against it by third party because of such correction. The CBSE would be justified in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with the fresh certificate to be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with caption/annotation against the changes carried out and the date of such correction. It may retain the original entries as it is except in respect of correction of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten. The fresh certificate may also contain disclaimer that the CBSE cannot be held responsible for the genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate. The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing fresh certificate. At the same time, the CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results. Such a condition, as we have held, would be unreasonable and excessive. We repeat 19 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 that if the application for recording correction is based on the school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained by it. However, if the request for recording change is based on changed school records post the publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the candidate would be entitled to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because such a change would occur obviously at her instance. If she makes such application for correction of the school records, she is expected to apply to the CBSE immediately after the school records are modified and which ought to be done within a reasonable time. Indeed, it would be open to the CBSE to reject the application in the event the period for preservation of official records under the extant regulations had expired and no record of the candidate concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed. In the case of subsequent amendment of school records, that may occur due to different reasons including because of choice exercised by the candidate regarding change of name. To put it differently, request for recording of correction in the certificate issued by the CBSE to bring it in line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to application made prior to publication of examination results of the CBSE."
"171. As regards request for "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent 20 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.
(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).21
KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020
(b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant."
16. In Paragraph No.146, the Apex Court considering the principle laid down by it in Indian Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board [ (1975) 2 SCC 414] held that provisions relating to correction in date of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections.
17. In view of the above said principle laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case, as discussed above, the petitioner herein has not approached respondent No.1 within the period specified in the Examination Bye-laws of respondent No.1. As 22 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 discussed above, at the time of making the application, the petitioner was pursuing B. Tech., Third Year Course in BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad Campus and his father is Railway Employee. Both of them are educated people and the father of the petitioner herein had declared the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1991. Even then, the petitioner herein had approached respondent No.1 with a request to correct his date of birth in January, 2013. Thus, the petitioner herein has not made the application within the aforesaid stipulated period of five (05) years seeking correction of his date of birth.
18. It is also relevant to note that every Education Department in the State / Union Territory had framed the age limit (i.e., minimum and maximum) for admission into the School. These Rules also followed by the Schools situated in the respective States. In accordance with the same, the Board had also made provision in the Examination Bye-laws as Rule 6.1 (a) (iii) and it says that satisfies the requirement of age limits (minimum and maximum) as determined by the State / Union Territory Government and applicable to the place where the school is located. The change of date of birth as sought by the petitioner is not only direct violation of the said Rules framed by 23 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 the Education Department but also not satisfied the above said Rules of the Examination Bye-laws of the Board if the date of birth of the petitioner is considered as 16.08.1993. If the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth is considered, then his entry in Class-I in the first school i.e., Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Secondary School, Chennai, would be at the age of three (03) years, and the same is not permissible even under the relevant State Act. The said facts were considered by respondent No.1 while rejecting the application of the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2015.
19. As stated above, pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2014 in W.P. No.12765 of 2013, respondent No.1 had sent letters to the Registrar, Births & Deaths, dated 20.12.2018 along with copies of Birth Certificates issued in 2015 and 1991 to clarify on the genuiness of the two birth certificates which was returned undelivered. The CBSE had again sent the letter dated 08.01.2019 along with the same enclosures to the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Zone to clarify on the genuineness of two birth certificates. In the reply dated 17.01.2009, the said Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad Zone, had not made any observations or remarks regarding the genuineness 24 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 of the previously issued birth certificate with registration No.1199 and registered date as 30.08.1991. Perusal of the both the certificates would reveal that in one certificate, the place of birth is mentioned as 'Swapna Nursing Home' and on the other certificate as 'Government Hospital, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad'. Therefore, respondent No.1 has complied with the order passed by this Court dated 10.12.2014 in W.P. No.12765 of 2013. On the other hand, there is no explanation from the petitioner with regard to the variation in the place of birth of the petitioner in the aforesaid two certificates issued by respondent No.2 Corporation.
20. As discussed above, the petitioner herein has not approached respondentNo.1 within the prescribed time of five (05) years seeking correction of his date of birth. He has filed the aforesaid writ petition No.12765 of 2013 questioning the action of respondent No.1 in not considering his request in change of date of birth and in the said writ petition, there is no consideration of the application form submitted by his father declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1993. The said fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition. However, in the order dated 08.11.2019 in 25 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 C.C. 286 of 2016, this Court gave a finding with regard to the aforesaid declaration in the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2014. There is no consideration of the aforesaid two Bye-laws of Examination Byelaws of respondent No.1 i.e., 69.2 (iii) and (iv).
21. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein had filed third party affidavit of his father, Mr. J. Srinivas. In the said affidavit, his father has stated that he is an employee of the Indian Railways. He has two children. The petitioner herein is his elder son who was born on 16.08.1993, while his younger son, J. Ajey Karthi was born on 13.06.1995 at Hyderabad. It is relevant to note that in paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit, the father of the petitioner also misrepresented the fact that in terms of his employment, he got numerous transfers from one place to another all over India. Therefore, his father-in-law had undertaken the admission of the petitioner for primary school and while admitting in the school, his father-in-law wrongly entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1991 instead of 16.08.1993. The said statement is factually incorrect. He made a wrong statement on oath i.e., his father-in-law undertook the admission procedure of the petitioner and, thus, he had conveniently suppressed the factum of 26 KL,J W.P. No.12977 of 2020 submission of application form signed by him declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.08.1991. Giving a false statement, on oath, amounts to 'perjury'. Even then, he has filed third party affidavit. Therefore, the same cannot be believed.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that considering the entire facts, respondent No.1 had rejected the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth vide order dated 15.10.2015, and there is no error in it. The petitioner herein failed to make out any case to declare the said order dated 15.10.2015 as illegal. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
23. The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 30th August, 2022 Mgr