Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision: .07.2013 vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 15 July, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Kumar Vinod
2013.07.15 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.13099 of 2013 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13099 of 2013
Date of decision: .07.2013
Ms. Seerat Khara ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K.Galhotra, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The twin prayers made by the petitioner in this writ petition are;
(i) for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 27.05.2013 passed by respondent no.1 declining her prayer to correct her date of birth in the Board's record; and (ii) for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to record her correct date of birth in their respective records on the basis of her birth certificate and passport etc..
According to the petitioner, she was born on 28.03.1994 in Bawa Nursing Home at Chandigarh. A certificate of birth dated 02.12.1994 was issued to her by the Chandigarh Administration, Department of Health, in which her date of birth is recorded as 28.03.1994 vide registration Kumar Vinod 2013.07.15 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13099 of 2013 [2] ***** no.3372 dated 07.04.1994. Incidentally, the petitioner is a an American citizen having passport no.488247916 issued on 20.05.2013 and is valid up to 19.05.2023. In this passport also, her date of birth is recorded as 28.03.1994. The petitioner has also appended a certificate of Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by the United States of America on 28.05.1998, in which her date of birth is also recorded as 28.03.1994. The petitioner has passed her 10+2 examination from the medical stream with 95% marks, but there occurred a discrepancy in her 10+2 certificate and the 10th certificate showing the difference of one year as her date of birth was got recorded by her grandfather as 28.03.1995 instead of 28.03.1994. It is averred by the petitioner that she wanted to apply for higher medical studies but not with a wrong date of birth, therefore, she made a representation to respondent no.1 through respondent no.2 for correction of her date of birth, which has been declined by the impugned order. It is also averred that she declared her date of birth in the newspapers, namely, Jan Satta dated 03.05.2013 and Times of India dated 07.05.2013, pointing out the error occurred because of mistake on their part.
In the reply filed by respondent no.1, it has been averred that the Board is bound by Bye-laws 69.2(i), which provides for correction of typographical and other errors, but the error in the present case is not a typographical error. It is also averred that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should have availed the remedy of filing a civil suit. It is also alleged that the petitioner herself verified her age in the school register by appending her signatures against her date of birth, i.e. 28.03.1995, and now cannot turn around to claim her date of birth as Kumar Vinod 2013.07.15 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13099 of 2013 [3] ***** 28.03.1994.
During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 06.07.2013 of Shadi Singh S/o late Sh. Des Raj, who happens to be the grandfather of the petitioner, in which he has averred that he had made a mistake in giving the wrong date of birth of the petitioner as 28.03.1995 instead of 28.03.1994. The affidavit is taken on record.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not seeking correction in the date of birth on account of some manipulation, rather the correction is being sought to streamline the record as the certificate of birth issued by the Chandigarh Administration on 02.12.1994 bears her date of birth as 28.03.1994 which is so recorded in her passport issued by the United States of America and also in the Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by the Department of State of the United States of America. He further submitted that the birth certificate issued under Section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), is admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the "Evidence Act") for the purpose of proving the birth to which the entry relates. He has further submitted that even the Bye-law 69.2(i) provides for correction of typographical and other errors which has crept up in the Board's record about the date of birth.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that correction in the entry regarding date of birth is a question of fact which cannot be agitated in the writ petition and can be more appropriately dealt with in a civil suit by leading cogent evidence. It is also submitted that the error committed by the petitioner does not fall within the Kumar Vinod 2013.07.15 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13099 of 2013 [4] ***** definition of typographical error and could not be corrected at this stage.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
From the resume of the facts borne out from the record, the dispute in the present case is with regard to date of birth of the petitioner which, according to her, is 28.03.1994 but has been given to the school at the time of her admission by her old grandfather as 28.03.1995, who has admitted his mistake in the affidavit filed by him in the Court. It is also not in dispute that the entry of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in the register for the year 1994 of the Department of Health, Chandigarh Administration, where record of births and deaths is maintained, in which she has been shown to have been born on 28.03.1994 at Bawa Nursing Home, Chandigarh and the date of registration of her birth is recorded as 07.04.1994 vide registration no.3372. This certificate is issued to the petitioner on 02.12.1994. The said date of birth dated 28.03.1994 also reflects in her passport no.488247916 issued by the United States of America as well as in the Consular Report of Birth Abroad dated 28.05.1998, issued by the Department of State of the United States of America. These certificates of 02.12.1994 and 28.05.1998 are not apparently manufactured documents as they came from the record of the Chandigarh Administration and the Department of State of the United States of America. The petitioner has been found to be highly meritorious having secured 95% marks in the medical stream who, before applying for any further course, has thought of correction in her 10+2 certificate so that she may not have to face any problem in future on account of any Kumar Vinod 2013.07.15 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13099 of 2013 [5] ***** misrepresentation.
The piquant issue is about the validity of the certificate of birth which has been issued to the petitioner by the Chandigarh Administration in the same year when she was born. According to the scheme of the Act, as per Section 8, it is the duty of the persons, who were specified in the said provisions, to give either orally or in writing, information to the Registrar of the several particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed by the State Government under Section 16(1) of the Act wherein a register is kept in the prescribed form for the purpose of registration of births and deaths in respect of the area to which the Registrar exercises jurisdiction. Section 12 of the Act provides for delivery of the certificate of registration of birth or death free of charge to the person who furnishes information under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act under his hand from the register relating to such birth and death. Section 17(2) of the Act provides that all certified extracts given by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the State Government to give such extracts in terms of Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates.
Even otherwise, as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act, the birth certificate is a public document and as per Section 76 of the Evidence Act, a certified copy of the public document can be issued by the public officer having the custody of the such public document, which is presumed to be genuine in terms of Sections 79 and 80 of the Evidence Act.
Besides this, the respondents have also not doubted the genuineness of the birth certificate as well as the Consular Report of Birth Kumar Vinod 2013.07.15 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13099 of 2013 [6] ***** Abroad issued by the Department of State of the United States of America. Now the question arises as to whether the respondents can still decline the correction in 10+2 certificate of the petitioner in terms of Bye-law 69.2(i), which is reproduced here-as-under:-
"69.2(i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records in respect of those candidates who have appeared for the Secondary/Senior School Examinations conducted by the Board 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."
Even the aforesaid provision helps the petitioner because there is no complete bar in the matter of correction as it is provided that the error in the date of birth can be corrected if it is a typographical or other error. The stand of the respondents is that the date of birth got recorded by the grandfather of the petitioner as 28.03.1995 is not a typographical error without even disclosing as to what are the typographical errors according to them.
Be that as it may, it appears to the Court that since the date of birth of the petitioner is 28.03.1994, it has been given to the school by the grandfather of the petitioner as 28.03.1995 in which the difference is only of the year and not of the day or the month. The error committed by the old grandfather of the petitioner falls within the definition of "other errors" if not in the typographical error and for that matter, the date of birth of the petitioner, whose actual date of birth is stated to be 28.03.1994, deserves to be corrected in the records of both the respondents. The respondents have Kumar Vinod 2013.07.15 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.13099 of 2013 [7] ***** also failed to point out as to what benefit the petitioner is going to take by giving her wrong date of birth in the school record. I am also not agreeing with the respondents on the issue that the petitioner should file a civil suit for the purpose of correction of date of birth as no disputed question of fact has been raised by the respondents except for alleging that the respondent no.1 could correct only typographical errors and error occurred in the record of the petitioner is not stated to be a typographical error. There is no denial to the documents viz. birth certificate issued by the Department of Health, Chandigarh Administration, passport and Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by the United States of America, which are in existence much prior to the initiation of this controversy as the birth certificate is of 02.12.1994 and the Consular Report of Birth Abroad is of 28.05.1998.
Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent no.1 is set aside and the respondents are directed to make necessary corrections about the date of birth of the petitioner in their respective records. Respondent no.1 is further directed to issue fresh 10+2 examination certificate, after making necessary correction, to the petitioner, as early as possible.
July , 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge