SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
R.Keerthana – Appellant
Versus
The Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai - 600006. – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.P.No.31656 of 2024 | W.P.No.18592 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.PA.Saigovindaraja
For the Respondents: Ms.Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader

The educational certificates' birth date can be altered following the provisions of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969.

Headnote:The judgment involves a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a request to rectify the petitioner's birth date on educational certificates. The court cites the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, determining that the prior rule prohibiting such alterations is superseded by this Act. The court establishes that the petitioner is entitled to correct her educational records in line with precedents set in previous cases. Final ruling allows the petitioner's requested changes.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge to the date of birth on educational records. (Para 1 , 2)
2. previous judgments supporting the petitioner's application were referenced. (Para 3 , 4)
3. final ruling to allow the petitioner's requested date of birth correction. (Para 5)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent, in and by which, the petitioner’s request seeking to rectify the Petitioner’s date of birth as 12.10.1997 instead of 12.06.1997 in her 10th and

12th standard marksheet was rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born on 12.10.1997 whereas, her date of birth was wrongly entered in her educational certificates as 12.06.1997. In order to rectify the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.01.2026 to respondent nos.1 & 2 seeking change of date of birth in the educational certificates, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 02.02.2026. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved is no longer res integra as the similar issue was already dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.31656 of 2024 dated 19.08.2024 wherein it is held that the date of birth can be altered in the SSLC mark sheet as well as in the HSC mark sheet, as the Registration of birth and Death Act, 1969 was enacted subsequent to Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme which mandates a bar for such alteration. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may extend the very same benefit to the petitioner herein as well. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.

4. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-

6. The issue involved in the case is no longer resintegra. This Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 in W.P.No.18592 of 2025, after following the judgement of this Court in (MANU/TN/5960/2012) in the case of S.Rajesh Kumar Vs.The Secretary, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Department of Government Examinations and others, has ultimately held that the date of birth can be changed in the SSLC mark sheet as well as in the HSC mark sheet, as the Registration of birth and death Act 1969, the Central Act and was enacted subsequent to the Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme and alteration is permissible.

7. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph Nos. 8 to 13 of the order passed in W.P.No.18592 of 2025, as under:

“8. The issue revolves around in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to correct the date of birth which was wrongly entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Higher Secondary School Mark Sheet? The only objection put forth by the respondents is as per Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme, such alteration will not be entertained.

9. In this connection, a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.Rajesh Kumar vs. The Secretary, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Department of Government Examinations and Ors reported in (MANU/TN/5960/2012) has held that Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme was enacted prior to the advent of the Tamil Nadu Registration of the Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (herein after referred as 1969 Act) and the rules framed thereunder. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that in 1969 Act, when there is a provision for alteration or correction of the date of birth, the subsidiary Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme which was enacted prior in point of time cannot have any binding force. In this connection, it is appropriate to extract para 29 of the above referred to judgment as under:

“29.Subsidiary Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme, relied on by the Respondents to contend that the Application for alteration in the Date of Birth will not be en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top