Back
2026 Supreme(All) 350
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
Vimal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 14707 of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2026
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Chandra Prakash Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s): A.S.G.I., Anant Kumar Tiwari, C.S.C., Gambhir Tripathi
Statutory birth certificates have presumptive validity; age determination should not rely on medical opinions when such documents are available.
Headnote:(A) Right to Education Act, 2009 - Admission criteria - Birth certificate presumption - In light of the birth certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the validity of age determination by ossification tests is questioned; such tests have a margin of error and cannot override statutory documents. (Paras 3, 10 and 13)
(B) Medical opinion - Unreliability - The reliance on medical reports for age verification, particularly when statutory documents are available, is improper; educational authorities must adhere to guidelines prioritizing statutory birth evidence. (Paras 9 and 11)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed for the admission of a petitioner born on 01.07.2013 into Class-VI, supported by a valid birth certificate. The petition was contested based on a conflicting medical opinion indicating an incorrect age.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the binding effect of statutory documents and the inappropriate reliance on medical opinions for age determination, directing the respondent to admit the petitioner into the desired Class-VI.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether an age determination based on statutory documents could be contested by medical opinions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that valid birth certificates issued under statutory provisions have presumptive validity and should take precedence over medical assessments unless proven otherwise.
Result: Writ petition allowed, directing admission of the petitioner into Class-VI.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for the petitioner's admission request (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over the validity of the birth certificate (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal authority of birth certificates and ossification tests (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. directive for proper admission criteria based on documents (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. final order and compliance direction (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no. 3 and 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"(A). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.4 to admitting the petitioner in Class-VIth in PM Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Duredi, Banda.
(B) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.4 to keep vacant one seat in class-Vi for the petitioner in the said institution.
(C). Issue any suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bantharee, Banda specifically records the date of birth of the petitioner to be 01.07.2013. He has also relied on the prospectus for admission to Class-VI in PM Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, wherein under the eligibility clause, more particularly in Clause 4.2, it has been mentioned that a candidate seeking admission must not be born before 01.05.2013 or after 30.07.2015. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.2013 and the birth certificate issued by the Government has a presumption of its validity and unless the same is cancelled or the presumption is dislodged, the date of birth of the petitioner could not have been doubted.
4. Per contra, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, relying upon Para-29 of the counter affidavit, has submitted that the Chief Medical Officer, Banda, through his letter dated 16.04.2025 though indicated that the age could be in variance of six months to one year, in the medical verification of the age of a candidate, he has given a report that the petitioner's age is about 16 year (wrongly transcribed as 15 year in Para-29). In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner could not have been given the admission.
5. On a pointed query to the learned counsel for the respondent, as to whether the birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bantharee, as annexed with the affidavit filed along with aforesaid writ petition (Annexure-2), has been controverted, he submits on the basis of the counter affidavit that the same has not been contradicted.
6. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is that once a document which has been issued under a statutory provision and the same being admitted, whether under the scheme which is beneficial in nature, is it open to the authorities to doubt the age of a student and seek for a medical report from the Chief Medical Officer.
7. It is trite law that the ossification test, based on which the CMO submits his report, cannot be said to be accurate and it has been considered to be having an accuracy of ± 2 years (Ref:Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Others; reported in (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Vishnu Alias Undrya Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in (2006) 1 SCC 283).
8. In the case of Vishnu Alias Undrya (supra), while the date of birth was being determined on the basis of the available evidences, the Apex Court had opined that the date of birth registered in the municipal corporation coupled with the statement of the parents is a determining factor. The correct date of birth, where unimpeachable document, is corroborated by even an oral statement, the ossification
