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 test based opinion of medical officer, which is really of an advisory character cannot take precedence over the date of birth recorded in the municipal corporation. Even as per the doctor's opinion in the ossification test for determination of age, the age varies.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, also examined