IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that official records of date of birth take precedence over unverified claims, ensuring accuracy in academic testimonials.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the judgment & order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5826/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner for correction of her date of birth in her academic testimonials, was dismissed.

3. It is the specific case of the appellant/writ petitioner that her date of birth has been wrongly recorded in her academic testimonials, i.e. HSLC, Admit Card, Pass Certificate, etc. Accordingly, the appellant/writ petitioner approached the Headmaster of the concerned school for correction of her date of birth by filing an application and the concerned Headmaster submitted the same to the respondent No.2 by incorporating the correct age. It is the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that since the respondent No.2 was sitting silent over the matter, she submitted another representation before the respondent No.2 for correction of her date of birth. It is the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that finally the respondent No.2, on 04.04.2022, disposed of the representation of the appellant/writ petitioner by holding that the age of the appellant/writ petitioner recorded by the respondent authorities in her academic testimonials is correct.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.2, the appellant/ writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner.

5. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner by relying upon a photocopy of a janam-kundali (Horoscope) of the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the same indicates that her date of birth was 01.03.1966 and not 10.12.1965 as recorded in the School Admission Register and hence, the age recorded in the Academic Testimonial is not correct. He further submits that the learned Single Judge, having not taken the age recorded in the janam-kundali (horoscope) as the correct age of the appellant/writ petitioner, erred in law and hence, the impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants interference from this Court.

6. Per contra, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that as per Notification dated 29.09.1975, SEBA has fixed time limit for filing an application for correction of the date of age, name, title, etc., from the date of commencement of examination concerned and on expiry of the same, no application shall be entertainable. He further submits that as per another Notification dated 29.09.1975, once age is recorded by the Headmaster and the same is entered into the record of the Board, it will not be altered except only on the ground of wrong calculation of the clerical errors for which an application has to be made. He further submits that since no such application was made within the time prescribed, the representation for correction of the date of birth of the appellant/writ petitioner is time barred. He further submits that the learned Single Judge, after examining the entire matter, has returned the verdict against the appellant/writ petitioner and as such, the same warrants no interference from this Court.

7. We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments made by the contesting parties and have also perused the material available on record.

8. The issue involved in this appeal is the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the representation dated 05.12.2019 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner for correction of her date of birth was rejected.

9. Apt to reproduce the order dated