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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15799

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
SANDEEP SHAH
MANISHA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CW / 21176 / 2025



[2025:RJ-JD:53575]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21176/2025

Manisha D/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 11 Years, Minor Through Petitioner Her Father Bhanwar Lal S/o Likhma Ram, Aged 30

Years, R/o Akdara, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Director General, Unique

Identification Authority Of India (Uidai), Bangla Sahib

Road, Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New Delhi.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,

Department Of School Education, Government Of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education,

Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief District Education Officer, Balotra, District

Balotra, Rajasthan.

5. The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Government School,

Akadara, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

6. The Chief Registrar (Births And Deaths), Directorate Of

Economics And Statistics, Yojana Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-

Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

7. The Registrar (Births And Deaths) Cum Block

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Baytu, District

Balotra, Rajasthan.

8. The Tehsildar, Baytu, District Balotra, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Choudhary

Ms. Muskan

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kirta Ram Meghwal

Mr. S.R. Paliwal

Mr. Siddarth Pandey

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

10/12/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

1. The present writ petiton filed by the humble

petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs throughout.

2. The rejection letter dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure- 10) issued by the office of the Tehsildar, Baytu, District

Balotra, may be quashed and set aside.

3. The respondent authorities may be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitoner from 26.01.2017 to 26.01.2014 in her Birth Certificate (Annexure-5) and all other ancillary and consequential official record.

4. The respondent authorities may be directed to update the petitioner’s corrected date of birth in her Aadhaar Card details (Annexure-6) and on the Shala Darpan portal in accordance with the correct records.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner was born on 26.01.2014. The Mamta Card issued in the name of her mother specifies the same date of birth. Subsequently, upon admission in Gyanodya Public School, the admission records also reflected the same date of birth. Later, when admitted to Government Primary School, Jogasa, Guljira, the same date of birth was maintained. However, inadvertently, in the birth certificate issued, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 26.01.2017 instead of 2014. Learned counsel further asserts that the petitioner’s brother, Abhimanyu, was born on 24.05.2017. To fortify this submission, the birth certificate of Abhimanyu has been placed on record. It is thus impossible for the petitioner to have been born in 2017, merely four months prior to the birth of her brother.

3. To remove this discrepancy, the petitioner filed an application for rectifying the date of birth in the Aadhaar Card and requested the Tehsildar to make the necessary correction. The wrong date of birth would otherwise cause impediments in her appearing for examinations and affect her future career. The Tehsildar, however, dismissed the application vide order dated 12.09.2025 by way of a cryptic order without considering the contents of the application.

Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent–Union of India submits that correction in the Aadhaar Card can only be done after correction by the Tehsildar. Learned counsel for the respondent– Tehsildar as well as other respondents from the State Government, Mr. S.R. Paliwal, is not in a position to dispute the averments made. However, he submits that the Tehsildar will consider the application afresh and pass a reasoned order within a period of seven days, in case such direction is issued by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection and agrees to such direc

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