Dismissed

Km. Rushda Parveen Thru. Her Mother Atiya Parveen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Education Secondary, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024/1552/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A student sought CBSE correction of her recorded date of birth from 01.01.2004 to 13.09.2006 relying on an Aadhaar card and a municipal birth certificate issued eleven years after birth. The court held Aadhaar is not proof of date of birth and the delayed certificate lacked credibility, finding the parents themselves had declared the earlier date at admission.

What the court decided

AI extract

Km. Rushda Parveen Thru. Her Mother Atiya Parveen… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45967

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1552 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Km. Rushda Parveen Thru. Her Mother Atiya Parveen Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Education Secondary, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashank Bhasin

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anas Sherwani, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶7

Dispute in the present case is with regard to date of birth of the petitioner.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father and mother of the petitioner have got married on 05.10.2004 and petition had born on 13.09.2006. The birth certificate stands annexed with the writ petition which has been issued nine years after birth of petitioner on 07.10.2015 by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation showing his date of birth as 13.09.2006.

¶9

It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for admission in Class 9th Aadhar Card was mandatory and at the time of filing admission form for Class 9, the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 01.01.2004 and in support thereof Aadhar card was annexed which was issued on 16.12.2011. Subsequently at the behest of the petitioner his date of birth was changed and instead of 01.01.2004, only birth year of petitioner as 2006 was recorded neither showing date nor month of birth in the petitioner's Aadhar Card. In the aforesaid circumstances, correction in Aadhar Card was made for the third time on 07.01.2021, where on the application of the petitioner her date of birth was recorded as 13.09.2006.

¶10

It is merely on the basis of Aadhar Card and the certificate issued by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation that an application was made to the Central Board of Secondary Education to change the date of birth of the petitioner from

¶11

01.01.2004 to 13.09.2006. The said application has been rejected on the ground that date of birth is at variance from the admission form submitted by the petitioner and different date of birth is mentioned in the Aadhar Card submitted by the petitioner and accordingly on this account application of petitioner has been rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition by submitting that the certificate issued by Lucknow Municipal Corporation was issued nine years after the birth of petitioner and in the entire writ petition neither date of birth recorded at the time of birth of petitioner or any certificate of the hospital has been annexed. It is further submitted that parents of the petitioner themselves had disclosed date of birth of petitioner as 01.01.2004 in the admission form submitted by them for session 2019-20, at Baby Martin Public School. It is submitted that there is no document submitted by the petitioner which can be safely relied upon which may inspire confidence indicating that date of birth of petitioner is 13.09.2006 as canvassed by him.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶14

Undoubtedly, provisions exist for rectification of the date of birth in case same has been incorrectly recorded by any of the authorities. While dealing with this aspect of change of date of birth documents submitted by the applicant should be such that they may inspire confidence and indicate that change sought is genuine and bonafide. Documents which are prepared on the basis of application form submitted by the persons themselves cannot be proof of date of birth inasmuch as the date of birth is given by the applicant himself/herself and there is no verification of the said record. There is no doubt that at the time of birth hospitals issue birth certificate on the basis of which various Municipal Corporations immediately duly register the birth of the individual in their Register of Birth and Death.

¶15

In the present case no explanation is forthcoming as to why the certificate issued by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation, more than 11 years after the birth of petitioner. From the material available on record it seems that even parents of the petitioner have themselves voluntarily disclosed the date of birth of the petitioner to be 01.01.2004.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav Vs. C.B.S.E. , passed in Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2019 , where in paragraph 171 it has been stated that request can be made for

¶17

change of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE and such a request can be made in two situations. Firstly, on the basis of public documents such as birth certificate, Aadhar Card, Voter ID for incorporating changes in the CBSE certificate and secondly, is with regard to change name of choice of the person. Present case falls in the first category and considering the facts of the present case, the public documents as prepared by the petitioner herself indicating three different dates of birth. Secondly, the material is available on record wherein at the time of admission in Class 9th, the parents of petitioner themselves have held that date of birth of petitioner is 01.01.2004.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the several date of births given by the petitioner while preparation of his Aadhar Card, clearly brings doubt in the mind of any reasonable person with regard to correctness of the date of birth. Even the certificate issued by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation indicates that date of registration to be 7th October, 2015, from which it is clear that said entry was not made at the time when petitioner was born and was made subsequently after 11 years when intimation of the same was given by the petitioner to the said authorities.

¶19

This court after perusal of the records and arguments has come to the conclusion that Aadhar Card cannot be a valid proof of date of birth. This view has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1.

¶20

There is also an office memorandum dated 20th December 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology Unique Identification Authority of India. In the said office memorandum, it is stated in paragraph 6 as under.

¶21

" 6. In view of the above, it is suggested that all Central Ministries/ Departments/ State Governments and other implementing agencies may keep in consideration the following :-

¶22

(a) An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se it's not a proof of date of birth.

¶23

(b) the usage of Aadhaar for delivery of welfare services, benefits or subsidies pursuant to Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 or for any other purpose as may be required under any applicable law and the extent to which Aadhaar is to be used is to be determined by the implementing agencies such as State Government/Central Ministries and other agencies.

¶24

(c) Aadhaar which includes Aadhaar card, physical copy of e- aadhaar, masked Aadhaar, offline Aadhaar XML, and QR code embedded on the Aadhaar card, may be used as a proof of identity / proof of address along with other acceptable documents (subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Authority from time to time), however, same may not be used as a proof of date of birth . "

¶25

Hence, reliability on Aadhar for change in Date of birth is rejected.

¶26

The petitioner has also submitted Birth Certificate obtained from the Registrar (Birth and Death) after delay of 11 years from birth. No cogent reason has been given for the delay of 11 years which raises suspicion in the veracity of the birth certificate. Multiple Aadhar cards and delayed birth certificate cannot be considered to be undisputed evidences to substantiate the claim of the petitioner and is thereby rejected.

¶27

This court is therefore of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 is correct and valid.

¶28

In the light of above there is no material to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Central Board of Secondary Education and this Court does not find any merit in the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶30

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 A. Verma

¶31

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Km. Rushda Parveen Thru. Her Mother Atiya Parveen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Education Secondary, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Km. Rushda Parveen Thru. Her Mother Atiya Parveen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Education Secondary, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ashiya Begum Vs U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Another

Sakiya Begum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Smt. Gudiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow and Others

Km. Rushda Parveen Thru. Her Mother Atiya Parveen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Education Secondary, Lucknow and Others

Aseem Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Reeta Verma Alias Reeta Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 2 Others