Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suyash vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 30 May, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.5397 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5397 of 2012
Date of Decision: 30.05.2012
Suyash
..... Petitioner
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE),
Panchkula and another
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
1. The prayer is for correction of date of birth in the records of the Board. The change sought is from 05.10.1996 to 05.10.1995. The petitioner today claims to be older than his present record suggests.
2. On notice of motion having been issued, Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel put in appearance on behalf of CBSE. He has filed written statement pleading protection of Bye-Law 69.2. No change in date of birth once recorded in the Board's record can be entertained. Only typographical errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school should not have been made after the CWP No.5397 of 2012 -2- submission of the application form for admission to examination of the Board, besides, genuine errors can be sorted out 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 the candidates application form of the candidate for the examination.
3. Still further, no request can be entertained unless forwarded by the Head of the school. In a case of present kind where the change if brought about would make a person older would deserve extra cautious examination since prima facie, I feel that at one stage, the candidate took advantage of the date of birth perhaps at the school entry level and now it would suit him to meet cut off dates and age bars in current academic pursuits. In any case, date of birth is a right of a legal character and can be more appropriately dealt with under the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner has a wholesome alternative remedy in the shape of a Civil Suit. It is not possible in writ jurisdiction to answer the prayer of the petitioner. Evidence would have to be led before the trial Court and upon examination of such evidence can the issue of relief be viewed, tested, declined or granted. At this stage nothing concrete can be said in the limited writ jurisdiction invoked under Art 226 of the Constitution. This is not a fit case in my view to interfere.
4. In view of the above, I dismiss this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his alternative remedy.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 30.05.2012 manju