Allowed¶43

A.Dhanush v. the Director

Madras HC3 Dec 2025WP/41039/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Date of birth correction in SSLC/Higher Secondary certificates; Rule 5 Tamil Nadu Secondary School Leaving Certificate Rules; post-examination DOB change barred; typographical error zero vs two; Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 Section 12 birth certificate; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Madras High Court; visa and overseas employment hardship; miscarriage of justice; fresh certificates within three months; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings R.C.No.205714/B5(1)2025 dated 14.05.2025 set aside; 3rd respondent directed to correct the petitioner's date of birth as 04.12.2005 in the 10th and 12th standard certificates and issue fresh certificates (by endorsement or fresh printout) within three months; no costs. ¶43

A.Dhanush Vs the Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's date of birth in the 10th and 12th standard (SSLC and Higher Secondary) certificates can be corrected from 24.12.2005 to 04.12.2005, notwithstanding Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Secondary School Leaving Certificate Rules, which bars change-of-date-of-birth applications after the student completes the school course and appears for public examinations. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The discrepancy in date of birth (24.12.2005 recorded instead of 04.12.2005) is a typographical error ('zero' typed as 'two'), and the birth certificate produced by the petitioner is authentic, with no ground to doubt it.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

No exception can be taken to the school/respondent authority rejecting the correction application under the rule that such mistakes should normally be corrected before the student completes the course; however, in view of the grave prejudice pleaded, failure to correct the mistake would result in a miscarriage of justice.

¶37

Key takeaways

Persons who go abroad earn foreign exchange and eke out a lawful livelihood; the Court as well as the authorities are always required to lean in favour of helping such petitioners to lead a lawful life.obiter¶37
On the extraordinary facts and circumstances - the petitioner gains no undue benefit from the correction and the correction is genuinely needed - the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 in R.C.No.205714/B5(1)2025 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside.ratio¶41
The 3rd respondent is directed to carry out the corrections in the 10th and 12th standard certificates as prayed for and issue fresh certificates, either by due endorsement in the same certificates or by fresh printout, completing the exercise within three months; no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 and set aside the Joint Director's proceedings R.C.No.205714/B5(1)/2025 dated 14.05.2025 rejecting correction of the petitioner's date of birth from 24.12.2005 to 04.12.2005 in his SSLC (10th) and Higher Secondary (12th) certificates. Although Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Secondary School Leaving Certificate Rules bars change-of-date-of-birth applications after completion of the school course and public examinations - so no exception could be taken to the authority's rejection - the court found the error to be a typographical slip ('zero' typed as 'two'), the Section 12 Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 birth certificate (No.B-2023:33-852-000001 dated 13.07.2023) authentic, the petitioner neither unduly benefited nor precluded by the correction, and the prejudice (difficulty in obtaining visas and working abroad) grave enough that refusal would cause a miscarriage of justice. The 3rd respondent was directed to correct the certificates and issue fresh ones, by endorsement or fresh printout, within three months; no costs.

¶1

W.P. No.41039 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.12.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

W.P. No.41039 of 2025

¶6

A.Dhanush

¶7

S/o.Arul, No.6 Vivekanandhar Nagar, 10th Cross Street, Pallikaranai, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600100.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

1.The Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600006.

¶11

2.The State Board of School Education, Rep. By its Secretary, Department of Government Examinations, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600006.

¶12

3.The Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600006.

¶13

4.The Head Master,

¶14

1/9

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P. No.41039 of 2025

¶17

Mother Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Pallikaranai, Chennai 600100.

¶18

5.The Head Master Mother Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Velachery, Chennai 600042.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.205714/B5(1)2025 dated 14.05.2025, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to correct the petitioner’s date of birth as 04.12.2025 in the SSLC and Higher Secondary mark sheets and issue fresh certificates.

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.P.Lavanya for Mr.T.Saravanan For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai 1 to 5 Government Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the proceedings in R.C.No.205714/B5(1)/2025 dated 14.05.2025 passed by the 3^rd respondent

¶24

and to consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to correct the petitioner’s date of birth as 04.12.2025 in the 10^th and 12^th standard mark sheets and issue 2/9

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P. No.41039 of 2025

¶27

fresh certificates and pass such further or other orders.

¶28

I perused the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 04.12.2005 and a birth certificate to that effect is also issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue Administration, Kurumbur Village Panchayat under Section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,1969 in Certificate No.B-2023:33-852-000001 dated 13.07.2023. Petitioner’s Aadhaar card also carries the said date of birth. However, while giving the date of birth to the school authorities, an error had crept in, instead of 04.12.2005 it is mentioned as 24.12.2005. It can only be by way of oversight/ typographical error wherein while typing “zero (0)”, number “two (2)” has been typed, therefore, the petitioner has made an application to correct the date of birth in the certificates, however, by the impugned order the same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

A counter affidavit is duly filed by the respondents. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, 3/9

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P. No.41039 of 2025 the correction relating to date of birth is dealt with by Rule 5 of the Tamil

¶32

Nadu Secondary School Leaving Certificate Rules and as per the same, applications requesting change of date of birth in the certificate must not be entertained after the student had completed the School course and appeared for Public examinations. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the authorities.

¶33

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶34

Firstly, it can be seen that the correction in date of birth that is now sought is from 24.12.2005 to 04.12.2005, i.e., there is a difference in the letter “zero(0)” to “two(2)”. Secondly, the error leads to a difference in 20 days. Thirdly, the petitioner is not in any government employment, neither will he be precluded from taking the 10^th or 12^th standard examination on the relevant date, if the date of birth is altered. The only reason that can be seen is that the petitioner’s date of birth in the birth certificate is different from that in the education certificate. In that case, it will be difficult for the petitioner to apply for VISAs and to undertake any work abroad. It is in this 4/9

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P. No.41039 of 2025 context, to put the record straight the relief is prayed for. It is innocuous in

¶37

nature. The birth certificate that is produced is authentic, there is no ground to doubt the same. When the mistake has occurred even though on the part of the petitioner, the law would lean in favour of correcting the mistake full It is true that there is a rule that normally such mistakes have to be corrected before the student completes the course and therefore no exception whatsoever can be taken for the school authority/ respondent authority in rejecting the same. However, in view of the grave prejudice that is pleaded, unless the mistake is corrected, it will result in miscarriage of justice. After all, persons like the petitioner go abroad only to earn foreign exchange and to eke out a lawful livelihood. The Court as well as the authorities are always required to lean in favour of helping such petitioners for leading a lawful life.

¶38

In view of the extraordinary facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioner is not going to be unduly benefited by the correction in date of birth and the correction in date of birth is genuinely needed, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:

¶39

i) The impugned order dated 14.05.2025 bearing Reference No. 5/9

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P. No.41039 of 2025 R.C.No.205714/B5(1)2025 passed by the 3^rd respondent is set aside.

¶42

ii) The 3^rd respondent is directed to carry out the corrections in the 10^th standard and 12^th Standard certificate as prayed for by the petitioner and issue fresh certificates either by making a due endorsement in the same certificates or by a fresh print out as the case may be.

¶43

iii) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶44

03.12.2025

¶45

mka

¶46

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶47

6/9

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis