Dismissed¶40

Md. Mobin Ali @ Mobin Ali v. Central Board of Secondary Education and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 May 2025WP(C)/6391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Date of birth correction in CBSE Class-X 2019 records; WP(C)/6391/2023; Clause 69.2 CBSE Notification dated 01.02.2018; five-year limitation for correction applications; undertaking signed by candidate and parents; Birth Certificate discrepancies — overwritten Registration No., differing handwriting; Forensic Science Laboratory handwriting expert examination; Directorate of Health Services, Government of Assam not made a party; disputed questions of fact; writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach Civil Court; Kendriya Vidyalaya (ONGC) Sivasagar; All India Secondary School Examination 2019.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the petitioner may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. ¶40

Md. Mobin Ali @ Mobin Ali Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the petitioner may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to correct the petitioner's date of birth from 16.09.2000 to 25.05.2003 in the Registration Certificate, Admit Card for Examination 2019 and Marks Statement-cum-Certificate issued by the CBSE for the All India Secondary School Examination 2019. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The date of birth of 16.09.2000 recorded in the document sent by the school to the CBSE was covered by an undertaking signed by the petitioner, his mother and father acknowledging the contents as correct, and the affidavit of respondent No. 4 annexed no Birth Certificate of the petitioner.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no ground to allow the writ petition because there are disputed questions of fact, which would probably require examination of the Birth Certificate by handwriting experts of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

¶38

Key takeaways

The authority which had allegedly issued the petitioner's birth certificate was not made a party to the proceeding; for this reason, among others, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in the case.ratio¶40
On perusal of the original Birth Certificate produced on 01.04.2025 pursuant to order dated 05.03.2025, the Court found visible discrepancies: the figure 'r' differs between the top and lower parts of the certificate, the Registration No.1069 shows overwriting (figure '6' super-imposed with '7'), the alphabet 'M' differs against the name and sex entries, and the handwriting on the top half differs from the bottom half; the certificate also bears no discernible seal, issuance date or issuing authority.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Michael Zothankhuma, J.), order dated 13.05.2025 in WP(C)/6391/2023 — Md. Mobin Ali @ Mobin Ali v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others. The petitioner sought correction of his date of birth from 16.09.2000 to 25.05.2003 in the Registration Certificate, Admit Card for Examination 2019 and Marks Statement-cum-Certificate issued by CBSE for the All India Secondary School Examination 2019, relying on his Birth Certificate, Identity Card, Aadhar Card and PAN Card. CBSE contended that per Clause 69.2 of its Notification dated 01.02.2018, corrections are entertainable only within five years of declaration of the result, and that the 16.09.2000 entry rested on a school-submitted document carrying an undertaking signed by the petitioner, his mother and father. On production of the original Birth Certificate (directed by order dated 05.03.2025; produced 01.04.2025), the Court noticed visible alterations — a differing figure 'r', overwriting of Registration No.1069 ('6' super-imposed with '7'), a differing alphabet 'M' and inconsistent handwriting — and noted that the alleged issuing authority, the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Assam, had not been joined as a party. Holding that disputed questions of fact would probably require examination by Forensic Science Laboratory handwriting experts, the Court declined to exercise its discretion and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to approach the Civil Court.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010241842023

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6391/2023

¶6

MD. MOBIN ALI @ MOBIN ALI

¶7

S/O MD. LATIF ALI, R/O VILL-RANGHAR CHARIALI, HATIKUKH, P.O.DHULIAPAR, P.S.-SIVASAGAR, DIST-SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785640

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHILPA GRAM ROAD, NEAR SHANKARDEV KALASHETRA, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-37

¶10

2:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶11

SHILPA GRAM ROAD NEAR SHANKARDEV KALASHETRA PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37.

¶12

3:THE REGIONAL OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SHILPA GRAM ROAD NEAR SHANKARDEV KALASHETRA PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37

¶13

4:THE PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA (ONGC) SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-78564

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. M H CHOUDHURY, R. BARUAH,TANZIM L. CHOUDHURY,MR. S N AHMED,MR. P CHAKRABORTY,MR MONZUR K CHOUDHURY

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBSE, MR. T K DEY(R-4),MR. M K MAJUMDAR (R-4)

¶16

Page No.# 2/6

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 13.05.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE and Mr. M. K. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶21

2. The petitioner claims that his Date of Birth is 25.05.2003 and that though the petitioner has submitted his Birth Certificate, indicating that his date of Birth was 25.05.2003, the respondent authorities have recorded the petitioner’s date of Birth as 16.09.2000.

¶22

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in the Registration Certificate, Admit Card for Examination, 2019 and the Marks Statement-cum-Certificate, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, for the All India Secondary School Examination, 2019, the petitioner’s date of Birth has wrongly been recorded as 16.09.2000. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted his Birth certificate, which was registered on 16.06.2003, to the school, when he took admission in Class-II in the year 2010.

¶23

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Birth Certificate issued by the Director of Health Services, Government of Assam shows that the petitioner’s date of Birth was 25.05.2003. Besides the above, the Identity Card of the petitioner given by the Kendriya Vidyalaya (O.N.G.C), Sivasagar, Aadhar Card and PAN Card shows the petitioner’s Date of Birth to be 25.05.2003. The

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

petitioner’s counsel thus submits that the respondents should be directed to correct the date of Birth of the petitioner in the Registration Certificate, Admit Card for Examination, 2019 and the Marks Statement-cum-Certificate, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, for the All India Secondary School Examination, 2019.

¶26

5. Ms. R. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, CBSE submits that in terms of Clause 69.2 of the CBSE Notification dated 01.02.2018, application for correction of date of Birth can be entertained by the CBSE only within 5 (five) years from the date of declaration of the result and not on a subsequent date. In this case, the petitioner has approached this Court for correction of date of Birth on 18.01.2023. The petitioner had also submitted an application/representation for correction of his date of Birth with the respondent no.4 on 29.02.2020. Ms. Borah submits that the date of birth recorded in the Admit Card for the examination, 2019 and the Marks Statement-Cum-Certificate issued by the CBSE for the All India Secondary School Examination, 2019, showing the petitioner’s date of Birth to be 16.09.2000 has been made on the basis of a document submitted by the school, in which the petitioner was studying, which showed the petitioner’s date of Birth as 16.09.2000. Further, the said document showing the petitioner’s date of Birth 16.09.2000 had been signed by the petitioner’s father, petitioner’s mother and the petitioner himself. The signature had been made pursuant to the undertaking in the document, which states as follows:-

¶27

“I have thoroughly checked all the details as filled in for registration of Class-X/XII Examination of my ward. I would not request any change in the detail filled in the registration form of my ward such as Date of Birth/candidate’s name/father’s name/mother’s name etc. If any

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

misstate is detected before or after declaration of the result, I would solely be held responsible for the same.”

¶30

6. Mr. M. K. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the petitioner’s date of Birth that had been sent to the CBSE by the school, had wrongly been made by a school teacher and the same should be corrected, as the records of the school had been made on the basis of the Birth certificate submitted by the petitioner and on the basis of a certificate issued by the petitioner’s earlier school, from which the petitioner had been transferred.

¶31

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶32

8. This Court, vide order dated 05.03.2025, had directed the petitioner to produce the original Birth Certificate and the same had been produced on 01.04.2025. This Court, on perusing the same, had made the following observation with regard to the Birth certificate produced by the petitioner on 01.04.2025, which is as follows:-

¶33

“This Court, vide order dated 05.03.2025 had directed the petitioner to produce the original Birth Certificate and the same has been produced today. On a perusal of the same, it is clearly discernible to the naked eye that the figure ‘r’ is different in the top part of the Birth Certificate and in the lower part of the Birth Certificate. Also, there is overwriting with respect to the Registration Number, wherein the figure ‘6’ has been super- imposed with the figure ‘7’ in respect of the Registration No.1069. The said Birth Certificate has been issued by the Directorate of Heath Services, Government of Assam, who has not been made a party in the present writ petition. There is nothing to show in the Birth

¶34

Page No.# 5/6

¶35

Certificate as to when the same was issued and by which authority and moreover, no seal of the authority who issued the certificate is discernible. This Court is of the view that as the Birth Certificate had been issued by the Directorate of Heath Services, Government of Assam, some light could have been thrown by the Directorate of Heath Services, Government of Assam, if it had been made a party. ”

¶36

9. A photocopy of the Birth certificate that had been produced by the petitioner on 01.04.2025 had also been kept in the records and a perusal of the same clearly goes to show the difference in the alphabet “M” as against the “name” of the petitioner and against the “sex” of the petitioner. Further, the handwriting on the top half of the birth certificate is different from the bottom half. This is over and above the observation made by this Court in para 8 of the order dated 01.04.2025.

¶37

10. On perusing the affidavit of the respondent No. 4, this Court finds that the respondent No. 4 has not annexed any Birth certificate of the petitioner. The document submitted by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, to enable the petitioner to take his CBSE examination for Class-X, shows that the petitioner’s date of Birth had been recorded as 16.09.2000 and that the undertaking that had been signed by the petitioner, his mother and father, was to the effect that the contents of the document submitted by the school to the CBSE were all correct.

¶38

11. On considering all above, this Court does not find any ground to allow this writ petition, as there are disputed questions of fact, which would probably require the examination of the Birth certificate by handwriting experts of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Further, as stated earlier, the

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

authority, which had allegedly issued the birth certificate of the petitioner, has not been made a party in this proceeding. In view of the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Md. Mobin Ali @ Mobin Ali v. Central Board of Secondary Education and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mobin Ali @ Mobin Ali v. Central Board of Secondary Education and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rup Bhanu Nessa Alias Rup Bhanu Vs Union of India and 6 Others

M/S Nes Digboi Bogapani Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Reejeet Nunisa Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S S S Enterprise Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shahid Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.