Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Subramonium Prasad, JJ
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION – Appellant
Versus
PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR – Respondent
LPA 171/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.A. Niyazi, Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Kirti Bhardwaj, Arquam Ali, Nohmat Sethi
For the Respondents: Rony O. John, Arshdeep Singh
The CBSE must amend records to reflect genuine public documents like birth certificates, upholding their statutory correctness and authority.
Headnote:(A) The judgment addresses the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, particularly Rule 69.2 regarding corrections to be made in records based on genuine clerical errors, emphasizing the importance and authority of Statutory Documents including Birth Certificates. (Para 4)
(B) Legal presumption of correctness attached to public documents necessitates considerations for making changes in certificates issued by CBSE to maintain consistency with statutory records. (Para 16)
(C) The court recognized the implications for applicants when discrepancies arise between public documents and educational credentials, underscoring the necessity of accurate records. (Para 22)
(D) The principles established herein affirm that the CBSE is obliged to amend records in light of updated public documents, reinforcing the importance of precise identification in legal proceedings. (Para 18) (E)
Result: Appeal rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the appeal and summarized background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's arguments relating to limitation and documentation requirements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on the importance of maintaining accurate records in educational certifications. (Para 10 , 12 , 20) |
| 4. significance of consistency across public documents concerning the petitioner. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final disposition of the appeal. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenges the Judgment dated 25.11.20221 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 2663/2022 titled as “Prema Evelyn Dcruz vs. Union of India and Ors.”.
2. Briefly put, the entire dispute revolves around the date of birth of Respondent No. 1 herein in the records of the Appellant. By way of W.P.(C) 2663/2022, in which the impugned Judgment came to be passed, the following reliefs were sought by Respondent No.1: -
Impugned Judgment
“(A) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner in the passing certificate of the All India Secondary School Examination number 00289915 dated 07.06.1999 and any other document issued by the Respondents relying upon the aforesaid certificate, after recording her correct date of birth, i.e., 27.02.198 I (as recorded in the Birth Certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act , 1969) pursuant to her application dated 17.11.2021, and to issue a fresh certificate to the Petitioner after making the aforementioned correction;
(B) In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent No. 2 to decide the Petitioner's application dated 17.11.2021, for change in date of birth in passing certificate of the All India Secondary School Examination number 00289915, after recording her correct date of birth i.e., 27.02.1981, in accordance with the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(C) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring that the Petitioner's Birth Certificate, issued by Greater Chennai Corporation (under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969) records her correct date of birth, i.e., 27.02.1981.
(D) Grant such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”
3. The said petition relied upon the birth certificate issued by Respondent No.2, namely, the Greater Chennai Corporation. The said birth certificate is not disputed by the Appellant. There is no challenge to the genuineness of the birth certificate issued and uploaded on the public website of Respondent No. 2.
4. While numerous grounds might have been taken in the appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellant has restricted his arguments to a singular point which is in respect of the request for the correction in the date of birth in the Central Board of Secondary Education records being beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule CBSE
69.2 in the Examination Bye-laws 19953 of the CBSE, which reads as under:-
“69.2 Change/Correction in Date of Birth:
(i) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board.
(ii) Such correction in Date of Birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidates/application form of the candidate for the examination ". (iii) Request for correction in Date of Birth shall be forwarded by the
