The birth certificate prevails over the matriculation certificate for date of birth, and the period of limitation for seeking correction should not bar the remedy as provided under the Limitation Act, 1961.

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. This petition is filed for seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in her matriculation certificate on the basis of birth certificate issued to her by the competent authority under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).

2. In brief, the petitioner passed her secondary school examination from CBSE in the year 2001. She was a student of MLS DAV Public School, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. Her date of birth was mentioned in the School Certificate as 24.11.1985. The petitioner got married in the year 2013. Her husband has got an assignment in Germany, she wanted to accompany him and she has to apply for the Visa. At Since, there is a requirement to attach the birth certificate, therefore, the petitioner obtained her birth certificate from the Registrar (Births and Deaths) Municipal Corporation, Gurugram and found that her date of birth has been mentioned in the birth certificate as 24.11.1984 instead of 24.11.1985. The petitioner has otherwise obtained Adhar Card with the correct date of birth of 24.11.1984. Be that as it may, realizing the mistake in the matriculation certificate, the petitioner approached the CBSE with a representation for seeking correction in the date of birth from 24.11.1985 to 24.11.1984 so that she may be in a position to apply for the Visa to the German Embassy otherwise there was an anomaly in her matriculation certificate about her date of birth which was not in consonance with the birth certificate issued under the Act. The representation of the petitioner remained pending with the CBSE, therefore, present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he does not want to file any reply and has relied upon the Examination Bye Law No. 69.2 of the CBSE as per which there is a limitation provided for seeking such type of correction i.e. a period of one year from the date of declaration of the result. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner might be having a right but lost the remedy after the expiry of one year after the declaration of the result of her matriculation examination.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in CWP No. 8603 of 2016 titled as Shifa Chawla Vs. The Central Board of Secondary Education and others, decided on 18.05.2017, in which similar controversy was there because in that case also there was an error in recording of year of birth otherwise month and date were similar. In the present case also, there is a dispute about the year of birth otherwise date and month is similar as the petitioner has inadvertently mentioned before the CBSE that she was born on “24.11.1985” whereas she was actually born on “24.11.1984”.

5. The petitioner has further relied upon an order passed by this Court in CWP No. 21287 of 2016 titled as Manthan Chabbra Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and another decided on 09.03.2017 in which direction was issued to by this Court to the CBSE to consider the case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the matriculation certificate and to issue a fresh certificate thereafter. He has also referred to a decision rendered by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Akhendra Garg Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and another; 2014 (31) SCT 853 in which the Court has held that if there is a conflict between statutory provisions and bye laws, the statutory provision would prevail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statutory provision would be the provisions of the Act under which the birth certificate was issued and therefore, the said birth certificate would prevail over and above the date mentioned in the matriculation certificate and in this regard, he has further referred to a judgment of division bench of this Court rendered in the case of Resham S