209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No.26378 of 2018

DATE OF DECISION : 22.03.2021

Amit Kumar

&..Petitioner

versus

Punjab School Education Board & Ors.

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Eklavya Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1

ALKA SARIN, J.:

Heard through video conferencing.

The present civil writ petition has been filed challenging the

order/letter dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure P-9) whereby the petitioner9s

request for change in his date of birth in school certificates has been

rejected and the fee deposited by him for this purpose has been forfeited.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the birth

certificate of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) records his date of birth as

22.09.1987, the middle and matriculation certificates issued by respondent

No.1 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) record his date of birth as 22.09.1983. It is

contended that in 2017 the petitioner discovered that his date of birth was

wrongly mentioned as 22.09.1983 in the certificates Annexures P-2 and P-

PARKASH CHAND

2021.03.22 02:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CWP No.26378 of 2018

- 2 -

3. The petitioner approached his school with his birth certificate Annexure

P-1 and on that basis the correction in his date of birth was carried out by

the school in it9s Admission and Withdrawal Register (Annexure P-4) and

his date of birth therein was corrected from 22.09.1983 to 22.09.1987. The

school vide an undated letter (Annexure P-5) also recommended to the

respondents for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner. Thereafter, the

petitioner deposited the fee of Rs.12,700/- with respondent No.2 and

submitted an application (Annexure P-7) for the respondents to correct his

date of birth. Vide letter dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P-8) respondent No.2

got the original birth certificate of the petitioner verified and sent it to

respondent No.1 for further action. Vide impugned order/letter dated

20.03.2018 (Annexure P-9) respondent No.1 rejected the petitioner9s

request for change in his date of birth in school certificates from

22.09.1983 (incorrectly typed as 22.09.1993 in the order/letter) to

22.09.1987. In the impugned order/letter (Annexure P-9) it was mentioned

that as per the Rules, the age for taking the middle exams is required to be

12 years by 31^st December of the year and if the date of birth is corrected

then the petitioner9s age at that time would be around 9 years and,

therefore, as per Order No.279 dated 19.01.2018 of Deputy Director

(Schools) the case of the petitioner stood rejected. It was also mentioned

that as per the Rules, the fees could not be refunded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

impugned order/letter (Annexure P-9) is illegal and arbitrary in as much as

since the birth certificate (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner recorded his date

of birth as 22.09.1987, the respondents ought to have accepted the

petitioner9s request for change in his date of birth. He has further

PARKASH CHAND

2021.03.22 02:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CWP No.26378 of 2018

- 3 -

contended that respondent No.1 had itself vide notification dated

29.08.2017 (Annexure P-10) allowed a golden chance to candidates for

getting their date of birth corrected and that the case of the petitioner was

covered by the said notification. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued

that when his school had carried out the correction in his date of birth in the

school records vide Annexure P-4, there was no reason for respondent No.1

not to carry out similar corrections in the certificates (Annexures P-2 and

P-3).

Notice of motion was issued. Respondent No.1 has filed a

reply dated 30.05.2019 taking the plea that as per t