Purnendu Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/s.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: –

“That this application is directed for setting aside the letter No. 3046 dated 06.03.2019 where under and where by birth certificate of Kumari Akriti (petitioner) showing her date of birth as 12.12.1997 has been held correct and issued the birth certificates showing her date of birth as 12.12.1998 and 12.12.1999 have been cancelled. Further for a direction upon the respondent authorities of Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna to affirm the birth certificate of petitioner as 12.12.1999 as correct, valid and genuine date of birth, which is the real date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in her Academic Certificate.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the year 2012, father of the petitioner applied for issuance of passport in the name of the petitioner in External Affairs Ministry, Government of India appending the birth certificate of the petitioner. However, it came to light that the date of birth of the petitioner has erroneously been mentioned as 12.12.1997 instead of 12.12.1999, in the aforementioned birth certificate. Subsequently, passport was issued by the passport authority on 14.05.2012, but the date of birth of the petitioner has incorrectly been mentioned as 12.12.1998, in the said unused passport of the petitioner, which was altogether a different date of birth.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, Kumari Akriti, had taken admission in the Krishna Niketal Girl’s School in class IVth on 09.02.2008. The actual date of birth of the petitioner is 12.12.1999, which is evident from the immunization card and admission details contained in her school records. The Admission Register contains her date of birth mentioned as 12.12.1999. The documents pertaining to her Central Board of Secondary School Examination (Class-X) 2015, also contain her date of birth as 12.12.1999.

5. Heard the parties.

6. Petitioner claims her date of birth to be 12.12.1999, as correct date of birth, mentioned in the certificate issued by Central Board of Secondary Education which is a public document.

7. The issue regarding determination of the correct date of birth based on several documents has come before the Apex Court from time to time. In Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P. reported in (2012) 9 SCC, 750 the court relied on the admission register of the school as clinching evidence. The reasoning that the parents would have given a wrong date of birth was taken to be a specious plea and disbelieved.

8. In the case of Pradeep Kumar vs. State of U.P., reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 419 the court has relied upon the School certificate as well as the age indicated by medical examination as both of them were consistent and indicated the same age.

9. After the order passed by the Kerala High Court in case of Jayakumar vs. The Regional Transport Officer and Others (W.P. No. 7073 of 2015 (H), the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India issued guidelines regarding change / correction of Date of Birth and in this regard relevant circular needs a careful consideration in deciding the claim of the petitioner.

10. One such circular was Circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 26.11.2015 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, in which Passport Officer has been authorized to take final decision in case of application filed with respect to change/correction of date of birth entries in the passport of an applicant already held by him/her without obtaining any declaratory order from a competent Civil Court.

11. The Clause 4(iii) of the Memorandum being Circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 26.11.2015 is very specific and goes to indicate that passport officer has been author