requests to the defendants to make the necessary correc(cid:18)on regarding his date of birth in the 10th Class Cer(cid:18)ficate, but defendants did not pay any heed, compelling him to file the suit seeking necessary declara(cid:18)on and mandatory injunc(cid:18)on

4. Stand of Defendants: The defendant N: 2 - CBSE was proceeded ex parte before the trial Court. Defendant No.1 - school took the stand that date of birth as 11.12.1994 was recorded in the school record based upon the informa(cid:18)on supplied by the parents of the plain(cid:18)ff at the (cid:18)me of his admission as they had submi,ed a Transfer Cer(cid:18)ficate of the previous school, in which the date of birth of plain(cid:18)ff was men(cid:18)oned as 11.12.1994.

5. Trial Court Findings: The trial Court found that as per the Birth Cer(cid:18)ficate (Ex.P1) issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, the date of birth was 11.12.1996. By relying upon “Resham Singh V. Union of India and another”, 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 653 (P&H) (DB), it was held that in case of a contradic(cid:18)on between date of birth cer(cid:18)ficate and the educa(cid:18)on record, primacy has to be accorded to the Birth Cer(cid:18)ficate and as such, the trial Court decreed the suit for declara(cid:18)on and mandatory injunc(cid:18)on on

02.04.2019.

6. Appellate Court Findings: However, in the appeal filed by the CBSE, the Appellate Court took the view that plain(cid:18)ff had approached the Court beyond three years a8er date of a,aining maturity and as such, the suit was barred by limita(cid:18)on. The Appellate Court relied upon “Ambika Kaul v. CBSE & Ors.” 2015(3) SCT 250 (P&H) . As such, accep(cid:18)ng the appeal of the CBSE, the Appellate Court dismissed the suit on 15.03.2021.

7. Conten3ons of appellant-plain3ff: Assailing the aforesaid reversal of findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plain(cid:18)ff that the actual date of birth of the plain(cid:18)ff being 11.12.1996 as per the Birth Cer(cid:18)ficate issued by a public authority, primacy has to be a,ached to it and that plain(cid:18)ff cannot be non-suited on the ground of a limita(cid:18)on, as ge;ng his date of birth corrected is his fundamental right. Learned counsel has referred to “Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh)

v. CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Educa3on) and Ors.”, 2021(7) SCC 535 and “Prema Evelyn Dcruz v. Union of India and others”, 2022 SCC OnLine (Delhi) 4095

8. Conten3ons of Defendants - respondents: On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -Board contends that the Appellate Court has rightly held the suit to be barred by limita(cid:18)on and so, there is no scope for interference. Learned counsel has relied upon:

o “Ambika Kaul v. Central Board of Secondary Educa(cid:29)on & Ors.”

2015(3) SCT 350 (P&H)

o “Abhimanyu v. Central Board of Secondary Educa(cid:29)on” LPA 482 of

2015.

o “Abhishek Kumar v. Central Board of Secondary Educa(cid:29)on Delhi”, RSA No.263 of 2017.

o “Simran v. Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Educa(cid:29)on”, CWP No.16029 of 2019.

o “Ankit Chahal v. Central Board of Secondary Educa(cid:29)on & Ors.” RSA No.3985 of 2015.

9. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the paper-book.

10. This Court’s Analysis:

[Primacy to public documents] - The authen(cid:18)city of Birth Cer(cid:18)ficate (Ex.P-1) issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, has not been assailed by learned counsel for the respondent - Board before this Court. In the said Birth Cer(cid:18)ficate, date of birth of the plain(cid:18)ff is men(cid:18)oned as 11.12.1996. On the other hand, the school cer(cid:18)ficate reveals the date of birth of plain(cid:18)ff as 11.12.1994. Plain(cid:18)ff seeks declara(cid:18)on to make correc(cid:18)on in the school record as per the Birth Cer(cid:18)ficate (Ex.P1).

11. In “Cidco v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar”, 2010 (1) SCC

301, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

“The Deaths and Births regis