Disposed¶19

Utkarsh Kumar v. Secy., Central Board of Secondary Education, Praygraj and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2025WRIC/11354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CBSE change of date of birth writ petition disposed; writ court cannot decide disputed questions of fact or test genuineness of hospital certificate dated 26.08.1995 (Women Hospital, Raebareli); DOB recorded as 06.08.1998 from admission form of 18.04.2007 and parivar register; remedy is declaration before civil court; follows Division Bench in Km. Rushda Parveen, Special Appeal Defective No. 452 of 2024; Utkarsh Kumar; WRIT-C 11354 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; order date 13.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned CBSE order dated 03.11.2023; liberty granted to the petitioner to seek change of date of birth by filing an appropriate suit for declaration before the civil court. ¶19

Utkarsh Kumar Vs Secy., Central Board of Secondary Education, Praygraj and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's date of birth recorded with CBSE (06.08.1998) can be corrected to 06.08.1995 on the basis of a photocopy of the hospital certificate dated 26.08.1995, or whether the genuineness of that certificate raises disputed questions of fact that a writ court cannot adjudicate and which require a declaration before the civil court.

¶17

Court's answer

Following the Division Bench ruling in Km. Rushda Parveen (supra), a writ court should not enter into disputed questions of fact regarding change of date of birth; the genuineness of the hospital certificate dated 26.08.1995 issued by the Women Hospital, Raebareli must be adjudicated by leading evidence, and the appropriate course is to seek a declaration before the civil court.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Being bound by the Division Bench judgment in Km. Rushda Parveen (supra), the Court did not interfere with the impugned CBSE order and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue change of date of birth by filing an appropriate suit for declaration before the civil court.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (WRIT-C No. 11354 of 2024, Lucknow Bench, decided 13.2.2025, Manish Mathur, J.) by Utkarsh Kumar against rejection by CBSE (order dated 03.11.2023) of his application for change of date of birth from 06.08.1998 to 06.08.1995, disposed of. The sole basis of the claim was a photocopy of a hospital certificate dated 26.08.1995 issued by the Women Hospital, Raebareli, whereas the school record of 06.08.1998 rested on the admission form filed by the guardian on 18.04.2007 and the parivar register produced by the mother. Holding, following the Division Bench in Km. Rushda Parveen (Special Appeal Defective No. 452 of 2024), that a writ court should not adjudicate disputed questions of fact and that the genuineness of the certificate must be tested by leading evidence: petitioner granted liberty to seek an appropriate suit for declaration before the civil court; impugned order not interfered with.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9428

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11354 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Utkarsh Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- Secy., Central Board Of Secondary Education, Praygraj And Another

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Mahendra Kumar Yadav

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- Shashank Bhasin

¶8

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 whose counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no.2 stands dispensed with.

¶10

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 03.11.2023 passed by Central Board of Secondary Education whereby petitioner's application for change of date of birth from 06.08.1998 to 06.08.1995 has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that inadvertently at the time of admission into school, the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 06.08.1998 in place of 06.08.1995, which has continued till date. It is submitted that petitioner's father late Ram Sajiwan passed away on 13.12.1995 and it is but natural that petitioner was born prior to that date and the date of death of petitioner's father clearly evidences the fact that petitioner was born on 1995 and not 1998. It is submitted that the concerned authority has not even adverted to birth certificate issued by hospital concerned regarding date of birth of petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the

¶13

submission that date of birth has been indicated in the marksheet on the basis of form filled by petitioner's mother at the time of admission into school. It is submitted that even thereafter, no effort was made by petitioner at the time of filling of the form pertaining to Class-X examinations for seeking any change in date of birth. It is submitted that petition therefore is also highly time barred. He has also adverted to judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Rushda Parveen versus State of U.P. Writ-C No. 1552 of 2024 whereby the Court declined to interfere with regard to change of date of birth. He has also adverted to Special Appeal Defective No. 452 of 2024, Km. Rushda Parveen versus State of U.P. to submit that Division Bench has clearly held that in such cases the writ courts should not enter into merit of the issue and in fact a declaration before Civil Court should be sought since disputed questions of fact cannot be entered into by writ court.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the entire basis of change of date of birth issued by petitioner rests on the hospital certificate issued on 26.08.1995 a photo-copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.2. It is also evident from a perusal of counter affidavit that the date of birth of petitioner was recorded as 06.08.1998 on the basis of admission form filled up by petitioner's guardian on 18.04.2007. It also indicates that date of birth of petitioner has been recorded by the school on the basis of details mentioned in the parivar register which was also produced by the guardian of petitioner i.e. his mother.

¶15

Division Bench of this Court in the Special Appeal in the case of Km. Rushda Parveen (supra) has clearly held that with

¶16

regard to change in date of birth on the basis of certain documents, it would be appropriate that a declaration before civil court is sought which can adjudicate disputed questions of fact since for a writ court it is unadvisable to enter into such disputed questions of fact.

¶17

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the entire thrust of petitioner's submission is based on certificate dated 26.08.1995 issued by the Women Hospital, Raebareli , it is therefore the genuineness of the aforesaid document which is required to be adjudicated upon by leading of evidence.

¶18

In such circumstances, this Court is bound by the judgment rendered by Division Bench in the case of Km. Rushda Parveen (supra) and therefore without interfering with the order impugned, liberty is granted to petitioner to seek such a remedy regarding change of birth by filing an appropriate suit for declaration.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Satish

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Utkarsh Kumar v. Secy., Central Board of Secondary Education, Praygraj and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utkarsh Kumar v. Secy., Central Board of Secondary Education, Praygraj and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Banasree Chakraborty Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Medical Education, Lko. and Others

Nishkarsh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lko. and Others

Neetu @ Neetu Kumari Pathak Vs Pawan Kumar

Vijai Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Ramkishor Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Ram Dhani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others