Allowed

Rubel Nath v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC18 May 2022WP(C)/419/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thispetition challenging CBSE's rejection of a belated date of birth correction application. The High Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment removing limitation bars, directing the Regional Officer to pass a reasoned order on the correction claim within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Regional Officer to pass a reasoned order on the date of birth correction claim within two months.

Rubel Nath Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010001832021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/419/2021

¶5

RUBEL NATH S/O SRI RATAN NATH

¶6

RESIDENT OF LAKHIMI NAGAR, PO AND PS HATIGAON, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, C WING, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI 11001

¶10

2:THE CHAIRMAN

¶11

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (HEAD OFFICE) SHIKSHA SADAN 17 INSTITUTIONAL AREAS ROUSE AVENUE NEW DELHI 110002

¶12

3:THE REGIONAL OFFICER

¶13

REGIONAL OFFICE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SHILPOGRAM ROAD (NEAR SANKARDEV KALAKSHETRA) PANJABAR GUWAHATI 781037

¶14

4:THE HEADMASTER

¶15

GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL MANHOFAI PO AND PS NAMSAI DIST NAMSAI

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

ARUNACHAL PRADESH 792100

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 18-05-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. D P Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parasar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Ms. R Bora, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Central Board of Secondary Education.

¶24

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not required to be issued on the respondent no. 4.

¶25

The petitioner appeared in the Secondary Education School examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, CBSE) for the session 2010-2012 and in the mark-sheet as well as admit card, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 29.08.1996. According to the petitioner, the correct date of birth is 30.08.1995 and not 29.08.1996 as recorded in the documents of the CBSE. Accordingly, a representation dated 03.08.2019 was made before the Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education at Guwahati by the Headmaster of Government Secondary School, Manhofai in the Namsai district of Arunachal Pradesh where the petitioner studied. The said application by the Headmaster was made pursuant to a representation submitted by the petitioner to the Headmaster concerned.

¶26

Along with the representation of the Headmaster dated 03.08.2019, the following documents were enclosed:

¶27

“Enclosed:

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

Certified copy of admission form of L.K.G. (Green View School, Namsai) 2. Certified copy of the admission register of L.K.G (Green View School, Namsai)

¶30

Certified copy of admission form of Class-IX (nine)(Govt. Secondary School, Manhofai)

¶31

Certified copy of admission form of Class-IX (nine) (Govt. Secondary School, Manhofai)

¶32

Certified copy of Date of Birth certificate.

¶33

Certified copy of L.O.C.”

¶34

The respondents in the CBSE had not given a due consideration to the representation of the Headmaster dated 03.08.2019 and in the circumstance, this writ petition was instituted.

¶35

A stand was taken by the CBSE that as the representation was submitted at much belated stage, therefore, it cannot be entertained any further. In the meantime, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 03.06.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3905/2011 and other similar appeals had decided the issue that limitation should not be a constrain for entertaining a representation for recording the correct date of birth, if otherwise, the ancillary public documents like Adhar Card, Birth Certificate etc. supports the requirement of such correction in the date of birth.

¶36

In view of the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, providing for absence of any limitation, for the purpose, we direct the Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education at Guwahati to pass a reasoned order on the representation dated 03.08.2019 of the Headmaster of Government Secondary High School, Manhofai, in Namsai district, Arunachal Pradesh which is available as Annexure-6, page-19 of the writ petition and pass a reasoned order on the claim of the petitioner for a correction of the date of birth.

¶37

For the purpose, the petitioner is allowed to submit any further public documents that the petitioner may seek to rely upon in order to facilitate the passing of the reasoned order.

¶38

If any other documents are to be submitted, the petitioner may do so within a period of fifteen days from today and thereafter, the Regional Officer to pass a reasoned order on the representation dated 03.08.2019 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶39

Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.

¶40

Page No.# 4/4

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Rubel Nath v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubel Nath v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jakaria Imran Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nazrul Haque Mazarbhuiyan Vs Smti. Mamata Hojai

Amzad Hussain Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Monowara Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Santana Bora Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abani Kr. Brahma and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.