Delhi District Court
S. Prajith vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 17 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 285/2023
CNR NO. DLET03-000541-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
S. Prajith
S/o Sh. V.K. Soman Nair,
R/o Kuttikattil House, Vettor,
P.O. Konnithzham, Pathanamthitta,
Kerala 609653 (India)
At present:
H.No.129, Marwah House,
Har Nagar Ashram, New Delhi-
110014 ..........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Central Board of Secondary Education
Shiksha Kendra, 2-Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
(Service to be effected through its
Secretary or any other Authorized REpresentative)
2. The Principal,
DTEA, Sr. Sec School,
Sector-IV, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. .........Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of Institution: 31.03.2023
CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 1 of 24 T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.09.19
16:37:02 +0530
Date on which Judgment was reserved: 02.09.2025
Date of Judgment: 17.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. In the present suit, the Plaintiff has prayed for a declaration in his favour and against the Defendants thereby declaring the correct date of birth of the Plaintiff as 10.11.1991 instead of 09.11.1991 and for a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to correct the date of birth of the Plaintiff in its record.
CASE AS PER PLAINT
2. Briefly stated, case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff was born at Pathanamthitta on 10.11.1991. Entry to this effect was also recorded under registration no. 2765/1991 on 19.11.1991 in Pathanamthitta Municipality, Department of Urban Affairs, Government of Kerala, which was issued by Birth and Death Registrar, Pathanamthitta, Kerala. Later on, Plaintiff got admission in DTEA Senior Secondary School Sector-IV, R.K. Puram, Delhi and passed Secondary School Examination in the year 2007. The certificate was issued to him by the Controller of Examinations on 29.05.2007. Further, Mark Sheet was also issued to the Plaintiff by Defendant no.1. In the said certificate, the date of birth of the Plaintiff was wrongly mentioned as 09.11.1991.
3. The Plaintiff has Voter Identity Card, Aadhar Card and Ration Card, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 10.11.1991. The correct date of birth of Plaintiff is 10.11.1991, which is evident from T CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 2 of 24 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:08 +0530 the Birth Certificate dated 13.02.2015.
4. In the month of January 2023, Plaintiff came to know that his date of birth in the records of the Defendants has been wrongly mentioned as 09.11.1991. Accordingly, Plaintiff approached Defendant no.2, however, concerned officials of the Defendant no.2 informed the Plaintiff that there are directions of the Defendant no. 1 with respect to change of date of birth and Court's Order is required in this regard. Defendant no.2 also informed the Plaintiff regarding publication of news, which is required for change of date of birth. Accordingly, Plaintiff published the aforesaid fact in the newspaper i.e. Times of India on 19.05.2025. In this background, the present suit for declaration and mandatory injunction has been filed against the Defendants.
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
5. Summons of the suit were issued to the Defendants and same was served upon them on 09.05.2023 and 19.05.2023. Pursuant to this, Ld. Counsels for both the Defendants have appeared and Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.1/CBSE filed his written statement, which was taken on record. Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.2 sought time to file the written statement. Multiple opportunities were granted to the Defendant no.2, however, the written statement was not filed. Accordingly, the Defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte on 05.07.2024.
T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 3 of 24 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:12 +0530 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
6. Defendant no. 1 has claimed that the present suit is false and vexatious. The specific averments / defences of the Defendant no. 1 is as follows:
a) The present suit of the Plaintiff is not tenable in view of the Amended Rule 69.2 (1) of the Examination bye-laws of the Defendant no.1/CBSE. It is also averred that no change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made.
b) It is averred that correction in date of birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman subject to satisfaction of the Chairman that wrong entry was erroneously made in the documents. Moreover, the request of change of date of birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School alongwith attested copies of admission application and portion of page of admission and withdrawal register where entry in the date of birth has been made alongwith attested copy of certificate issued by Municipal Authority and school leaving certificate of previous school.
c) The application for correction in date of birth shall be entertained by the Board only within five years of the date of declaration of result.
d) Defendant no.1 has also relied upon a judment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Paramjeet Kaur vs. CBSE [W.P.(C) 3484/2008], wherein the case was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is unable to explain as to why T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 4 of 24 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:15 +0530 no steps were taken from 1974 or after the petitioner became a major.
e) It is also averred that the suit is filed after 16 years of passing of class 10th examination. Hence, the suit is barred by Article 58 of Limitation Act and is liable to be dismissed.
Further, neither Gazette Notification nor newspaper publication has been done by the Plaintiff in the present suit. So the formalities of the Defendant no.1 has not been complied with.
f) It is also averred that notice under Section 80 CPC was not served upon Defendant no.1.
g) Further, the birth certificate issued to the Plaintiff was generated on 13.02.2015 i.e. after passing of class 10th examination of the Plaintiff.
ISSUES
7. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 05.07.2024, the following issues were framed:
Issue no.1 - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that his correct date of birth is 10.11.1991, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP Issue no.2 - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing Defendants no.1 and 2 to correct date of birth of Plaintiff in their records to 10.11.1991 in place of 09.11.1991, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 5 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:20 +0530 Issue no. 3 - Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the extant examination bye-laws of Defendant no.1? OPD1 Issue no. 4 - Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD1 Issue no. 5 - Whether the suit is time barred for being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation? OPD1 Issue no. 6 - Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
8. In order to prove his case, Plaintiff/Sh. S. Prajith was examined and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B, wherein averments made in the plaint have been reiterated. He also relied upon various documents and tendered them in evidence, such as -
a) Copy of Birth certificate Ex. PW1/1(OSR);
b) Copy of 10th class pass certificate Ex. PW1/2 (OSR);
c) Copy of mark sheet of 10th class which is Mark A;
d) Copy of Ration Card which is Ex. PW1/4(OSR);
e) Copy of Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW1/5; and f) Copy of Voter I Card which is Ex. PW1/6(OSR). T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 6 of 24 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:24 +0530
9. Plaintiff deposed as PW1. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.1. In support of his case, Plaintiff also examined PW2 Sh. V.K. Soman Nair, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A and relied upon his Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW2/1(OSR). Plaintiff also examined PW3 Sh. Aji. S. Kumar, Senior Public Health Inspector, Grade-I, Registrar of Birth, Death and Common Marriage, Pathanamthitta Municipalties, Kerala, who brought the documents i.e. Birth Certificate of Plaintiff which is Ex. PW3/A(OSR), Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 which is Ex. PW3/B, Copy of Birth Register mentioning entry which is Ex. PW3/C (OSR) and Report regarding above said document which is Ex. PW3/D. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.1 despite giving opportunity. After conclusion of evidence, PE was closed vide order dated 27.01.2025.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
10. Defendant no. 1 led his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. the Copy of CBSE notification which is Mark A (colly), Certified copy of tabulation register which is Ex. DW1/2, Attested copy of school record of Plaintiff which is Ex.DW1/3 (colly) and copy of Weeding Out Rules, 1998 which is Mark B. The witness was not cross- examined being a formal witness.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.09.19
16:37:29 +0530
CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 7 of 24 FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties. The pleadings as well as evidence and all the annexed and exhibited documents and record.
FINDINGS Issue no.1 - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that his correct date of birth is 10.11.1991, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
12. A suit for declaration can be maintained only within the scope and ambit of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 34 does not sanction every form of declaration. It sanctions only a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a specific legal character or to any right as to property. In order to obtain relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant has denied or is interested in denying the character or title of the plaintiff.
13. The Plaintiff has prayed for said relief as there is an error/inconsistency in his recorded date of birth in CBSE records and other official records. The date of birth has also affected legal rights of the Plaintiff to have uniform documents and therefore, comes within the purview of "legal character". Hence, the Plaintiff clearly makes out a case under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 where the CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 8 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:33 +0530 declaration of legal character of the plaintiff is sought and the same is denied by the defendants.
14. In support of the relief prayed by him, the Plaintiff has examined PW3 Sh. Aji. S. Kumar, Senior Public Health Inspector, Grade-I, Registrar of Birth, Death and Common Marriage, Pathanamthitta Municipalties, Kerala. PW3 has placed on record Birth Certificate of Plaintiff which is Ex. PW3/A(OSR), Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 which is Ex. PW3/B, Copy of Birth Register mentioning entry which is Ex. PW3/C (OSR) and Report regarding above said document which is Ex. PW3/D. In his Report, PW3 has stated that "from the Birth Register it is evident that the birth of Mr. S. Prajith was registered before my office on 19.11.1991 as register number 2765/1991. His date of birth is 10.11.1991". Copy of the Register of Births and Deaths is Ex. PW3/C and the copy of the birth certificate is PW3/A. In all the documents, the date of birth is mentioned as 10.11.1991. The Plaintiff's father has admitted in his deposition that he had erroneously written the date of birth as 09.11.1991. The Ld. Counsel for CBSE has pointed out that there is no error on behalf of the Defendants and the error was on behalf of the Plaintiff's father. In CIDCO vs. Vasudha Goraknath Mandevlekar [2009 7 SCC 283] it has been observed that records maintained by statutory authorities have a presumption of correctness in their favour and they would prevail over any entry made in the school register. In the date of birth certificate, the Aadhar Card and the Ration Card, the date of birth of the Plaintiff has been mentioned as 10.11.1991. The public servant i.e. PW3 has verified the records and also given a report CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 9 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:37 +0530 that the Plaintiff's date of birth is 10.11.1991. The said public records have a presumption of correctness. In view of the above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff with the finding that he is entitled to a decree of declaration that his date of birth is 10.11.1991.
Issue no.2 - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing Defendants no.1 and 2 to correct date of birth of Plaintiff in their records to 10.11.1991 in place of 09.11.1991, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP Issue no. 3 - Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the extant examination bye-laws of Defendant no.1? OPD1
15. Both the issues are being discussed cumulatively as issue no.3 is the defence of the Defendant no.1 and decision of issue no.2 will be dependent on whether Defendant no.1 is successful in discharging its onus in issue no.3. The main defence of the Defendant no.1 CBSE is that the suit is barred by Rule 69.2 of the Examination Bye-laws. The said rule is reproduced below:
"69.2 Change in Date of Birth:
No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made.
69.3 (Correction in Date of Birth) A. Correction as per the school records:
i. Corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 10 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:41 +0530 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 candidate/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 alongwith attested photostat copies of:
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 a longwith 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 alongwith documents mentioned in the 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 year.
CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 11 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:46 +0530 v. This rule will be application to all cases after Class XII 2015 examination onwards B. Correction as per Courts Orders.
Applications regarding correction in date of birth of candidate will be considered provided the correction have been admitted by the Court of law. In cases of correction in date of birth in documents a fter the court orders caption will be mentioned on the document "CORRECTION ALLOWED IN DATE OF BIRTH FROM TO______ ON (DATED)______ AS PER COURT ORDER NO.____ DATED____".
16. The Defendant CBSE has placed on record copy of the School Record which is Ex. DW1/3 (colly). The documents include the Admission Register, Admission Form and Affidavit submitted by the Plaintiff's father. In the said documents, the date of birth of the Plaintiff has been mentioned as 09.11.1991. In this background, it is averred that the date of birth has been mentioned as 09.11.1991 in the School records and no efforts have been ever been taken by the Plaintiff to correct the same. It is further submitted that correction is only possible where there is a typographical or clerical error rendering the certificate inconsistent with the school records.
17. It is pertinent note that this is not a case where the date of birth issued in the CBSE certificate differs from the date of birth mentioned in the school records. The Plaintiff has clearly deposed that the date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records. The correction is T CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 12 of 24 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:50 +0530 sought basis public documents such as birth certificate, voter ID card, Aadhaar card and Ration card. As there is no discrepancy between the school records and the certificate issued by CBSE, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.1 that the Plaintiff has not moved application before the school as per the procedure laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jigya Yadav vs. CBSE (2021 7 SCC 535) does not hold any weight as even if such an application had been filed, the school would have rejected the same in the view of the absence of any discrepancy/inconsistency in its records and the certificate. Dismissal of a suit on such a technical ground would not tentamount to justice as the Plaintiff would be relegated to file a fresh suit consequent to reject of his application by the CBSE and would suffer from the inordinate delay which would be occasioned on account of such an order.
18. In CBSE vs. Prema Evelyn D Cruz and another (decision dated 04.06.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA 171/2023 & CM APPL. 11492/2023), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed the following:
"We would like to set out certain other relevant paragraphs with respect to the utility and importance of CBSE certificates as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (supra), which are as follows:-
"144. The utility of certificates issued by the Board is not confined to educational purposes anymore. They serve a social purpose today and are often used to cross verify particulars like name and date of birth while applying for other government identity documents. They assume immense relevance while applying for various jobs, both public and private. Interestingly, CBSE itself has argued at length on the importance and CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 13 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:37:53 +0530 authoritative value of their certificates. In such circumstances, an inaccuracy or denial of change could be fatal to a student's future prospects and all these concerns cannot be brushed aside in the name of administrative exigencies. xxx xxx xxx
150. No doubt, it is true that CBSE certificates are not strictly meant to be considered as identity documents, however, the same are being relied upon for corroborative purposes in all academic and career related transactions as foundational document. In fact, the CBSE itself has conceded to this fact that their certificates are relied for all official purposes, as noted above. The date of birth in matriculation certificate, in particular, is relied upon as primary evidence of date of birth of a citizen. Therefore, as regards the information contained in a CBSE certificate, the Board must afford opportunity to the students to modify it subject to complying with requisite formalities which are reasonable in nature. If all other State agencies could allow it for the preservance of consistency and accuracy, alongside being enablers in free exercise of rights by the citizens, there is no reason for the CBSE to not uphold that right of the students. More so, it would be in the interest of CBSE's own credibility that their records are regarded as accurate and latest records of a student worthy of being relied upon for official purposes. Therefore, this approach would serve twin purposes -- enabling free exercise of rights and preservance of accuracy."
19. On the issue as to whether the CBSE 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, it was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav vs CBSE (supra paragraph 17) as follows:
"Point 3 Binding value of public documents
167. Whether CBSE is obliged to effect changes in the certificates issued by it upon production of updated public documents (other than school records), is the next issue for consideration. According to the Board, it would not be CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 14 of 24 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.09.19 16:37:57 +0530 permissible as it has no independent mechanism to verify the genuineness of the public documents. Even under the Bye-laws, there is no requirement for the Board to verify the genuineness of the documents. It is simply not the job of the Board.
168. The bye-laws provide for a two-tier mechanism for recording change of name or other details (as indicated above).
One of them is prior permission or declaration by a court of law to be obtained. As regards public documents like birth certificate, Official Gazette, Aadhaar card, election card, etc. the same enjoy legal presumption of its correctness in terms of explicit provisions contained in Chapter V of the 1872 Act. The 1872 Act extends such presumption in terms of Section 76 read with Sections 79 and 80 of the 1872 Act and as in the case of Official Gazette under Section 81 of the same Act. Even other legislations concerning public documents attach equal importance to the authenticity of such documents including while making changes in their certificates to which we have alluded to in this judgment. Understood thus, there is no reason for the CBSE Board to not take notice of the public documents relied upon by the candidate and to record change on that basis in the certificate issued by it, for being consistent with the relied upon public documents. It matters not if the information furnished in the public documents is not entirely consistent with the school records of the incumbent. The CBSE while accepting those documents as foundational documents for effecting changes consistent therewith may insist for additional conditions and at the same time while retaining the original entry make note in the form of caption/annotation in the fresh certificate to be issued by it while calling upon the incumbent to surrender the original certificate issued by it to avoid any misuse thereof at a later point of time. It would be permissible for the CBSE to insist for a sworn affidavit to be given by the incumbent making necessary declaration and also to indemnify the CBSE. The fresh certificate to be issued by the CBSE may also contain disclaimer of the Board clearly mentioning that change has been effected at the behest of the incumbent in light of the public documents relied upon by him. In addition, the incumbent can be called upon to notify about the change in the Official Gazette and by giving public notice as precondition for CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 15 of 24 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:38:01 +0530 recording the change by way of abundant precaution.
169. This Court in CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar [CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, (2009) 7 SCC 283: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 319], has observed that the records LPA 171/2023 Page 8 of 14 maintained by statutory authorities have a presumption of correctness in their favour and they would prevail over any entry made in the school register. The Court observed thus: (SCC p. 288, para 18) "18. The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the respondent. (See Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp SCC 604 : AIR 1988 SC 1796] .)"
The same position of law can be extended to the mandate laid down in Right to Education Act and Chapter 3 of the CBSE Bye laws relating to admission of students. Bye-law 6.1 is instructive and relevant extract thereof reads thus:
"6. Admission : General Conditions:
6.1. (a) A student seeking admission to any class in a „School‟ will be eligible for admission to that Class only if he: xxx xxx
(iv) produces: ... xxx
(c) For the purposes of admission to elementary education, the age of a child shall be determined on the basis of the birth certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 or on the basis of such other document, as may be prescribed, as stipulated in Section 14(1) of THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009.
(d) No child shall be denied admission in a school for lack of age proof, as stipulated in Section 14(2) of THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009."
CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 16 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:38:05 +0530 Therefore, even at elementary education level, there is a clear legislative intent to rely on statutory birth certificates for the purpose of date of birth. The authoritative value of these certificates is duly affirmed in this scheme.
170. There is no difficulty in correcting CBSE record to bring it in conformity with the school record. The difficulty arises when a statutory document is not consistent with the school record. As observed earlier, the version supported by statutory documents could be reckoned for the purpose of correction in CBSE certificate to make it consistent with public documents. xxx xxx xxx
172. When a student applies to a court of law for prior permission and/or declaration and produces public document(s), the court would enter upon an inquiry wherein the legal presumption would operate in favour of the public document(s) and burden would shift on the party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or oppose the claim on any other ground. The question of genuineness of the document including its contents would be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the court of law would permit the desired change only upon verifying the official records and upon being satisfied of its genuineness. At the same time, the question of justiciability of the requested changes would be considered and only upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated by the student, the court would grant its permission. The said permission can then be placed before the Board along with copy of publication in the Official Gazette and requisite (prescribed) fee (if any). The Board would then have no locus to make further enquiry nor would be required to enter upon any further verification exercise.
173. We may now advert to the dictum of the Kerala High Court in Subin Mohammed [Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 39731: (2016) 1 KLT 340]. The same has been relied upon in most of the impugned judgments for permitting corrections. In that decision, the Court discussed the inadequacies in the Bye-laws and issued directions to CBSE to correct date of birth with reference to statutory birth certificates provided the request is found to be genuine. The CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 17 of 24 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.09.19 16:38:09 +0530 operative directions read thus: (SCC OnLine Ker para 42) "42. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate for this Court to dispose the writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That CBSE shall correct the entries in the marksheet of the petitioners with reference to their corresponding birth certificates issued by the statutory authority, if the request is found to be genuine. (ii) Genuineness of the birth certificate can be ascertained from the respective local/statutory authority/Head of the Institution or such other method, CBSE may deem it fit. (iii) CBSE can demand in advance a consolidated fee, including all expenses for processing such applications. (iv) Each of the petitioners shall pay Rs 5000 (Rupees five thousand only) as cost to CBSE within a period of one month." (emphasis supplied) Thus, the task of determining genuineness of the request was left to the CBSE, which not only goes contrary to our discussion above but also fails to take into account the limitations of CBSE as a body. While considering requests for changes in certificates, CBSE cannot act as a court and it cannot effectively consider any request over and above those requests that merely require bringing the certificates in conformity with the school records or public documents, as the case may be."
20. Relying upon the above-mentioned ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jigya Yadav's case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CBSE vs. Prema Evelyn D Cruz and another (decided on 04.06.2025 LPA 171/2023 & CM APPL. 11492/2023) has observed:
"Upon a careful reading of the above extracted paragraphs, it is evident that public documents, such as an official birth certificate issued by the competent authority, carry a statutory presumption of correctness under the law. In the present case, there exists no cogent reason for the Board to disregard the said document. Accordingly, the Board is expected to take due notice of such statutory public documents and effect consequential corrections in the records of the Appellant.
18. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court states that these CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 18 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:38:15 +0530 documents would be in the nature of foundational documents and to safeguard it, the CBSE is permitted to call upon the person seeking such a change to fulfill certain further formalities which could be in the nature of a sworn affidavit making the necessary declaration and also indemnifying the Board, surrendering any earlier documents pertaining to or making a reference to the information that is now sought to be corrected, etc.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also states that a fresh certificate, which the CBSE issues, may also contain a disclaimer by the Board mentioning that the said change is based on the public documents submitted by the person seeking such a correction.....
22. The fact of the matter is, various other public authorities including the Passport Authorities, have accepted the birth certificate of Respondent No. 1 herein. Based on this certificate, necessary changes have also been carried out in the Passport etc., being the documents required by Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of seeking employment in a foreign jurisdiction, namely, Australia.
23. It is, in fact, for this reason that the Respondent herein had initiated various steps required for making necessary corrections in all relevant documents and ensuring that they were all in tandem and error-free. Failure to ensure the documents being without errors would have jeopardized the entire future of the Appellant.
24. This Court fails to understand the vehemence with which the matter is being opposed. A citizen of this Country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them. The CBSE is a record keeper of considerable importance, as has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (supra) as well as by the learned Single Judge. The matriculation certificate of a person is considered an unassailable proof of date of birth. This Court also notes that a Passport, among certain other documents, is also considered as CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 19 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:38:19 +0530 a valid proof of date of birth. If the CBSE record is at variance with the Passport, it could lead to the creation of considerable doubt in the minds of any person who is considering Respondent No. 1 for employment, immigration or for any other purpose. 26. There is thus an imminent need to ensure that all official documents are in consonance with each other, as this not only provides certainty regarding specific details contained in public documents but also helps preserve the identity of a citizen, with the date of birth being an essential facet. 27. This Court reiterates that the Petitioner has not laid any challenge to the veracity of the Birth Certificate issued by the competent corporation i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein."
21. In view of the above, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the present suit is not barred by virtue of Rule 69.2 of CBSE Bye- laws. Even in the aforesaid case of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was observed that a request for correction of date of birth basis public documents would not be in violation of Rule 69.2 of the CBSE Bye- laws. Further, 69.3 of the CBSE Bye-laws clearly provide that the correction of date of birth can be effected by way of a Court order. Therefore, issue no. 3 is decided against the Defendant no. 1 CBSE and in favour of the Plaintiff. Consequently, failure to provide documents without errors would jeopardize the future of the Plaintiff. The Defendants have not challenged the veracity of the birth certificate. The Defendant no.1 CBSE has averred that the birth certificate has been issued on 13.02.2015 and hence, cannot be relied upon. This averment of the Defendant is not acceptable as PW3 has filed the Register of Births and Death, which is Ex. PW3/C, wherein the date of birth is reflected as 10.11.1991. The registration number in the birth certificate which is Ex. PW3/A, matches with the registration number mentioned in the Register of Births and Death. There is no T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 20 of 24 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:38:23 +0530 reason why the said documents ought to be doubted. As observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Prema Evelyn D Cruz case (Supra para 17), a citizen of this country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public document that pertain to them and there is imminent need to ensure that all officials documents are in consonance with each other as this not only provides certainty regarding specific details contained in public document but also helps preserved the identity of a citizen, with the date of birth being a significant facet. In view of the above, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff with directions to the Defendant no.1 to issue amended Delhi Secondary School Examination Certificate of the Plaintiff with his date of birth as 10.11.1991 subject to payment of prescribed fees in view of administrative expenses. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer indicated the date on which correction has been recorded and the basis thereof.
Issue no. 5 - Whether the suit is time barred for being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation? OPD1
22. It is averred by the Defendant/CBSE that as per Bye-laws, an application for correction in date of birth shall be entertained by the Board only within five years of date of declaration of result. It is also submitted that the present suit has been filed after 16 years of passing of 10th class examination and the suit is barred by Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963. Per contra, the Plaintiff has averred that he came to know of the error in the date of birth in the records of CBSE in CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 21 of 24 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.09.19 16:38:35 +0530 January 2023 and therefore, limitation period shall be counted from the said date.
23. In Kirti vs. Union of India and others [Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 5961/2023], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that "where correction is sought on the basis of the public documents, the authority issuing the certificates concerned cannot reject the application solely on the ground of limitation. Where the correction is on the basis of solely the school records, the authority is well within its right not to accommodate such requests, after the period of limitation stipulated in that regard is crossed. This is for the reason that the certificate issuing authority, such as the CBSE, would have to verify the correctness of the claimant's claim by comparison with the school records and once the school records stand weeded out by the authority, such verification is not possible". In this case, the decision of NIOS rejecting the petitioner's request for the correction in date of birth on the basis of public documents was rejected solely on the ground of limitation.
24. Even in Prema Evelyn D Cruz case (supra paragraph 17), it was argued that the request was beyond the period of limitation, however, the said argument was countered with the averment that the aspect of limitation or weeding out of documents would not come in the way of CBSE making any corrections in the records basis public documents. The Defendant CBSE has not established that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the error in the certificate from the very begining, no questions to this effect had been put to PW1. Also, Article 58 has not T CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 22 of 24 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:38:39 +0530 create an absolute bar if the wrong entry in itself is continuing to cause prejudice. Nevertheless, as provided for in the abovesaid precedents of superior courts, the said argument cannot deprive the Plaintiff of his right to have his correct date of birth mentioned in the CBSE records. Therefore, issue no. 5 is decided against the Defendant no.1 and in favour of the Plaintiff.
Issue no. 4 - Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD1
25. The cause of action in the present matter arose when the Plaintiff came to know the error/discrepancy in his date of birth in the CBSE issued certificate. Defendant no. 1 has not been able to establish his onus that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff in the present matter. Hence, issue no. 4 is decided against the Defendant no.1 and in favour of Plaintiff.
RELIEF
26. In view of the above discussion, following reliefs are granted to the plaintiff-
a) decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby declaring that the correct date of birth of Plaintiff is 10.11.1991; and
b) decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff directing Defendant no.1 to issue amended Delhi Secondary CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 23 of 24 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.09.19 16:38:43 +0530 School Examination Certificate of the Plaintiff with his date of birth as 10.11.1991 subject to payment of prescribed fees in view of administrative expenses and compliance of rules. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer indicating the date on which correction has been recorded and the basis thereof.
27. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Deficient court fees, if any, be deposited at the time of execution.
28. Applications, if any, which are pending in the present judicial file and have not been pressed by the parties are also disposed of as dismissed as not pressed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
Announced in open court 2025.09.19
on this 17th September, 2025. 16:38:47 +0530 T. Priyadarshini Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This judgment consists of 24 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
CS No: 285/2023 S.Prajith vs. Central Board of Secondary Education Page No. 24 of 24