Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Shaista Khan vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 21 July, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7230 of 2016
KU. SHAISTA KHAN
Vs.
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & OTHERS
For Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Singh, Senior Advocate with
: Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Aditya Pyasi, Panel Lawyer.
Order posted for: 21.07.2017.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
-:- 2 -:-
W.P. No. 7230 of 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Case No. W.P. No.7230/2016 Parties Name Ku. Shaista Khan.
Vs.
Central Board of Secondary Education &
others
Date of Judgment 21/07/2017
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered by Justice Sujoy Paul
Whether approved for reporting Yes
Name of counsels for parties Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Singh, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Anshul Tiwari,
Advocate.
Respondent/State: Mr. Aditya Pyasi, Panel Lawyer.
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph numbers -
(Order)
21.07.2017
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge is made to the order dated 10-02-2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby prayer of petitioner to alter her date of birth is rejected by Central Board of Secondary Education (Board).
2. The petitioner submits that she was born on 13-09-1981. The said date is reflected in birth certificate and progress report (Annexure P/3 & P/4). In the passport, date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 13-09-1981. The petitioner appeared in the examination of Class Xth conducted by the Board. The petitioner contends that she had rightly filled up the form by mentioning her date of birth as 13-09-1981 whereas the date of birth was wrongly mentioned by the Board as 20-07-1981. The petitioner was busy in prosecuting her studies and could not notice this and prefer any application for correction of date of birth in the mark- sheet of Class Xth (Annexure P/6).
-:- 3 -:-
W.P. No. 7230 of 20163. The petitioner started preferring application for getting oversees jobs. During that period, it was noticed that different date of birth are recorded in her testimonial. The petitioner promptly preferred an application for correction of date of birth which was forwarded to Board by Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Ordnance Factory, Katni on 23-01-2016. The petitioner filed her affidavit also. These documents are filed as Annexure P/7 & P/8.
4. The said application of petitioner which was forwarded by school was rejected by respondents by order dated 10-02-2016 (Annexure P/1). The sole reason for rejection is that the request regarding correction was made after one year from the date of declaration of result. Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of orders passed by Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P. No.871/2014 [Manisha Parpiyani vs. CBSE & other] and in W.P. No.632/2017 [Ku. Disha Agrawal vs. CBSE] & 2015 SCC online P&H 1669, [Ambika Kaul vs. CBSE & others] , this petition may be allowed. The petitioner has prayed for alteration of date of birth on the basis of entry in the passport. If such alteration is made, no prejudice will be caused to any one.
5. Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the said contention of the petitioner. Shri Maindiretta submits that the decision taken by the board is in accordance with the relevant provision. At the relevant time, when forms were filled up it was signed and countersigned by the petitioner and the Principal of the concerned school. If petitioner was interested to seek alteration in the date of birth recorded in the mark-sheet, she should have applied within the time limit. Shri Pankaj Dubey also borrowed same arguments and opposed the relief claimed.
6. No other point is pressed by the parties.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
-:- 4 -:-
W.P. No. 7230 of 20168. The respondent No.3 in his reply narrated the events/educational journey of the petitioner which is relevant in this case:
"
Sr. Date of Date of TC Clas Name of Vidhyalaya Annexu No. Admissi Issued s re on 1 08/08/88 30.04.198 3 Reema Convent School, Prem R2 9 Nagar Kanpur 2 01/08/89 05/07/90 4 Santhom School, Maihar Satna R3 3 12/07/90 03/05/91 5 Kendirya Vidhyalaya C.R., R4 Manmad 4 09/07/91 13/06/94 6&7 Kendirya Vidhyalaya O.F., R5 Bhusawal 5 20/07/94 Passed XII 8 to Kendirya Vidhyalaya O.F., Katni R6 on 12 30/04/98 and TC issued on 16/03/200 0 "
9. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner and her parents consistently declared the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.07.1981. Reliance is placed on the form filled-up by the petitioner (Annexure-R/1). In school leaving certificate and other documents filed alongwith the return, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 20.07.1981. All the documents filed with the return shows that the date of birth of petitioner is consistently recorded as 20.07.1981. The petitioner is seeking alteration of date of birth on the basis of entry in this regard made in the passport. She also placed reliance on an affidavit.
10. In this factual backdrop, whether a mandamus can be issued for correction of date of birth is the core issue. Moreso, when Regulation 69.2 (iv) prescribes the limitation of one year. This provision is reproduced in Annexure-P/1, which reads as under:
"The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of school alongwith attested school records shall be entertained
-:- 5 -:-W.P. No. 7230 of 2016
by the Board only within one year of the date of declaration of result"
(emphasis supplied)
11. A careful and conjoint reading of the document filed alongwith the return shows that the date of birth of the petitioner was consistently recorded as 20.07.1981. The petitioner and her parents are signatory to certain documents and were fully aware that such date of birth is recorded in various educational documents. They did not take any action promptly. The alternation is prayed for on the basis of the date of birth (13.09.1981) recorded in the passport. It is a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily the date of birth mentioned in the passport is based on the entries mentioned in the educational qualification documents. In other words, on the basis of date of birth entered in the mark-sheet etc., a person ordinarily gets his date of birth recorded in the passport. It is not other way round. The date of birth mentioned in the educational certificates/mark-sheet is recorded prior in time than the entry made in the passport. On the basis of entry in the passport, the entry regarding date of birth recorded in the mark-sheet cannot be directed to be altered.
12. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of said rule which prescribes the limitation of one year within which alteration can be prayed for. In absence thereto, this Court cannot direct the respondents to act contrary to rules. This is trite law that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Writ Court is not obliged to pass any order which is contrary to law (See: 1994(1) SCC 175, [State of Punjab & others vs. Renuka Singh & other], AIR 2002 SC 629, [Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ashrafull Khan & others], AIR 2010 SC 1099, [Manish Goel vs. Rohini goel]). It is equally well settled that if statutory provision is not under challenge, inevitable effect of that provision cannot be subject matter of challenge (See: 2000 (4) SCC 285, [Molar Mal (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. vs. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd.]
13. Apart from this, in W.P. No.11584/2008 [Kapoor Singh vs. State of M.P. & others] decided on 15.01.2003, this Court held as under:
"Having appeared for his Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination in the year 1971, the petitioner was issued a mark-sheet
-:- 6 -:-W.P. No. 7230 of 2016
wherein his date of birth was recorded as 26.07.1953. No steps were taken by him for getting the said date of birth corrected. Petitioner entered into government service on the basis of the said mark-sheet, on the basis whereof his date of birth is recorded in service book as 26.07.1953. It is only after 37 years, the petitioner woke up seeking correction of his date of birth in the mark-sheet and the corresponding correction in service book. It is, however, too late now for the petitioner to seek rectification in the record."
14. In the orders passed in Manisha Parpiyani & Ku. Disha Agrawal (Supra), the Court made it clear that said orders shall not be treated as precedent. Thus, no assistance can be claimed on the basis of said orders by the petitioner. In the case of Ambika Kaul (Supra) decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Division Bench of Court speaking through Hemant Gupta, J (as his Lordship then was) opined as under:
"LPA No.1613 of 2014 (Ambika Kaul vs. CBSE and other). In this case, the school certificate records the date of birth as 4.7.1992, whereas she has claimed that her actual date of birth is 4.7.1991. She has approached this Court in the year 2014 i.e. when on the basis of her actual birth certificate she was more than 21 years of age. Thus, she could not seek correction of date of birth on the basis of he certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the correction in date of birth must have been applied within three years of her attaining the age of majority. In view thereof, we do not find any error in the DALBIR SINGH 2015.05.21 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1613 of 2014 (O&M) & LPA No.373 of 2015 (O&M) (31) order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, LPA No.1613 of 2014 is dismissed."
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. In the light of aforesaid analysis, the petitioner is unable to make out a case for issuance of writ of mandamus for alteration of date of birth in the mark- sheet. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. No Cost.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge s@if