The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.22856 of 2016 Devi Prasad Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. A. Das, Adv. -versus- Regional Officer, CBSE & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. T. Pattanaik, Adv. (for O.P. NO.1) Mr. Ankit Prasad, Advt on behalf of Mr. A.P. Bose, Adv.(for O.P. No.2) COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 10. 1. ORDER 19.03.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned counsel
Legal Reasoning
appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No.1 and Mr. Ankit Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No.2 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer. Under the circumstances, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit the Writ Petition. After hearing both sides this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in // 2 // nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ/writs in setting aside the impugned order vide Annexure-4. And direction be issued to the opp. parties issue correct certificate to the Petitioner to mentioning date of birth is 10.09.1997. And appropriate order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court things fit and proper. further pass And for which act of your kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray. 4. It is contended that in the certificate issued by the CBSE in the Secondary School Examination held on 2013 under Annexure-1, Petitioner’s date of birth was wrongly recorded as 28.03.1997, even though the actual date of birth of the Petitioner is 10.09.1997. In the said certificate, the name of the Petitioner was wrongly also recorded as “Debi” in place of “Devi”. 4.1. It is contended that on being moved, the College vide letter dt.23.08.2016 under Annexure-2 though requested the Board to make necessary correction with regard to the date of birth of the Petitioner and his name, but the same was rejected by the Board vide impugned communication dt.24.10.2016 under Annexure-4. 4.2. It is contended that since in the certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation under Annexure-3, date of birth of the Petitioner is recorded as 10.09.1997 and his name has been recorded as “Devi”, but because of the fault committed by the School, the date of birth was wrongly Page 2 of 10 // 3 // recorded as “28.02.1997” and the name as “Debi” in place of “Devi”. The school on coming across such wrong committed by it, though moved the Board under Annexure- 2 vide letter dt.23.08.2016, but the same was rejected by the Board without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim. 4.3. It is contended that such a correction is permissible in terms of the provisions contained as per the examination Bye-Laws framed by the CBSE vide notification dt.01.02.2018. Not only that, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of his claim relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others, (2021) 7 SCC 535. Hon’ble Apex Court in para 192 to 194 of the said judgment has held as follows. 192. Although we have discussed the broad issues canvassed before us, in the ultimate analysis the real dispute requiring resolution is about the nature of correction or change, as the case may be, permissible to be carried by the CBSE at the instance of the student including past student. As noted earlier, broadly, two situations would arise. is where 193. The first incumbent wants “correction” in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. the 193.1.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 the extant has regulations. While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such its record under to maintain Page 3 of 10 // 4 // to for the CBSE cannot as, 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 the genuineness of the school records produced by the in support of the request to record incumbent 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, 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 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. Page 4 of 10 // 5 // 193.2 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 line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to application made prior to publication of examination results of the CBSE. in it 194. 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 with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents 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. Certificate, Birth like 194.1 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, Page 5 of 10 // 6 // may disclaimer as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh and contain certificate 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 in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten). to above (except 194.2 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 including surrender/return of original Gazette 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 including has been recorded and other details 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.” 4.4. It is also contended that placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jigya Yadav , this Court in a similar issue allowed the claim vide order dt.05.03.2024 in W.P.(C ) No.19503 of 2022 (Mitrabhanu Panda Vs. State of Odisha & Others). It is accordingly contended that since for no fault of the Petitioner, Petitioner’s date of birth and his name has been wrongly recorded by the Board in the certificate issued under Annexure-1 and on the face of Page 6 of 10 // 7 // the request made by the School, the same was rejected, in view of the decision in the case of Jigya Yadav, such a claim is required to be allowed by quashing the impugned rejection . 5. Mr. Tarananda Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board on the other hand contended that such correction prior to issuance of the notification dt.01.12.2018 was one year and no application is entertainable after expiry of the period of one year from the date of issuance of the certificate. On the face of the request made by the School under Anexure-2, claim of the Petitioner was rejected, relying on the provisions which was prevalent at the relevant point of time. It is however, contended that in the meantime vide notification dt.01.02.2018, the period of making the application has been extended to 5 years and such correction can also be made as per Court’s order. Relevant extract of such Bye- Laws before 01.02.2018 and after 01.02.2018 reads as follows: Existing Rule : (Before 01.02.2018) 69.2 (Correction in Date of Birth) Xxx xxx xxx iv. The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of School along with documents mentioned in Bye- Laws 69(iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within one year of the date of declaration of No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of one year. result. Page 7 of 10 // 8 // Amended Rule:(After 01.02.2018) 69.3 (Correction in Date of Birth) Xxx xxx xxx iv. The application of correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of school along with documents mentioned in bye- laws 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. B. Correction as per Court Orders Applications regarding correction in date of birth of candidates will be considered provided the entertained by the Board only within one years of the date of declaration of result. No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of one year. Correction have been admitted by the Court of law.
Decision
In cases of correction in date of birth in documents after the Court orders caption the document will be mentioned on “CORRECTION ALLOWED IN DATE OF BIRTH FROM TO __________________ON (DATED)____________________AS PER ORDER COURT NO.____________________DATED____________ It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Page 8 of 10 // 9 // date of birth of the Petitioner is reflected as “10.09.1997” and his name has been reflected as “Devi” in the certificate issued by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation under Annexure-3. Such a document having been issued by a competent authority and the same being a public document, relevancy and effect of the said document cannot be disbelieved. 6.1. It is also found that the school on being moved also accepted the wrong committed by it while making the application to the Board on 23.08.2016 under Annexure-2. In the said letter, the school clearly indicated that the date of birth of the Petitioner is 10.09.1997 and his name is “Debi” in place of “Devi”. But on the face of such documents being provided, with the request by the school claim of the Petitioner was rejected by the Board vide the impugned communication dt.24.10.2016 under Annexure-4. 6.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jigya Yadav, followed by this Court in the case of Mitrabhanu Panda and the provisions now made as per the notification dt.01.02.2018, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned communication dt.24.10.2016 so issued by Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-4. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. party No.1 to issue a fresh certificate by indicating the date of birth of the Petitioner as “10.09.1997” and his name as “Devi Prasad Mishra” in place of “Debi Prasad Mishra”. Page 9 of 10 // 10 // 6.3. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to issue a fresh certificate within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to surrender the earlier certificate in original issued by the Board along with a copy of this order for compliance. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaiton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 17:59:15 Page 10 of 10