Allowed

Pari Jindal D/O Shri Ashoka Rajan v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2019CW/9047/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court added a judgment to a writ petition seeking correction of the petitioner's date of birth in her mark-sheets due to a clerical error, which happens to be 2000. The petitioner, as a clerical error was not filed after becoming aware of the discrepancy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent-3 to issue corrected mark-sheets for Class 10th and Class 12th reflecting the correct date of birth within four weeks.

Pari Jindal D/O Shri Ashoka Rajan Vs Central… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9047/2019

¶3

Pari Jindal D/o Shri Ashoka Rajan, Aged About 20 Years, By Caste Jindal, R/o D-704, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Central Board Of Secondary Education, Through Its ChairPerson, "Shiksha Kendra" 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.

¶7

Central Board Of Secondary Education, Through Its 7 fir FA

¶8

Secretary, "Sbi$st-ia "Ke5dra-~; 2; ,C%mmunity Centre, Preet -BB*r -0l2.gi$,b

¶9

Vihar, DelhiflBgOo92. 9 Q":- %- -$: 3 r-%

¶10

3. Regional -'& DJrector, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer,J@j$sthan. A. v7

¶11

Principal, Maharani Gayatri Devi ~irso Jaipur, & rl

¶12

Rapsthan. cs"~

¶13

8Q=/ ----Respondents x.f - -i

¶14

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

HON'BLE MR. JU

KUMAR GOYAL

04/12/2019

seeking correction in the date of birth in t petitioner of her loth and class issued by-tk \qfiqq$ @-n&aLBoard,of Secondary Education -&@GI- 1 b# 4c4 in tune with the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate and passport. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that her correct date of birth, as per the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, is 27.05.1999 and the same date of birth was recorded in her passport as well as the identity card issued way back in the year 2008-2009 till 2013-2014 by the M.G.D. Girls' School, Jaipur in which she was student from Class 4 to Class 12. It was canvassed that on account of bona fide mistake

¶19

and inadvertence, while filing up the examination form for the secondary examination with the C.B.S.E., the date of birth came to be entered incorrectly as 21.03.1999 instead of 27.05.1999. The error in date of birth is also reflected in her Senior Secondary Examination, 2017. It was contended that while having admission in B.B.A.L.L.B. course in the year 2018, she came to know of this error in her date of birth in loth and mark-sheet, whereupon, she No 1 to 3

¶20

Balwada that it wa fide error as is evident from the documen pecially, the birth certificate issued by n which correct date of birth was registered 9, i.e., immediately after her birth. He circular issued by the respondent-C. ake change in date of birth, but this Hon' ted of its extraordinary jurisdiction to do so stice. He has placed reliance upon the j urt in Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Board o tion, Rajasthan and anr.: SBCWP No. 9906/2010.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has canvassed that ratio decidendi in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma(supra) is not applicable as in that case the rules of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer were under examination, whereas, in the instant case, the rules of the C.B.S.E. prohibits any such change if it is not on account of clerical

¶22

error. It was contended that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and the writ petition should not be entertained on this account at all. As per Rule 69.2, under notification dated 01.02.2018, the change in date of birth is inpermissible except where the error was on account of typographical error to make the certificate consistent with the school record that too within a period of one year from the date of error. It was contended that admittedly the beyond the that the

¶23

form. He prayed for dismissalf-pJ b=%rit petition.

¶24

Heard learned is not a case where the petitioner has a hange in her date of birth on the basis of th nt to issuance of the mark-sheets of class 1 he certificate dated 21.01.2004 issued by th poration, Jaipur, her date of birth was register school record, the da reflected from the Ritv cards issued bv the school from the year 2 013-14.

¶25

In these circumstances, this Court can safely infer that only on account of bonafide clerical error, the date of birth in the examination form of the petitioner came to be mentioned 21.03.1999 instead of 27.05.1999. The petitioner has sought correction in the date of birth as soon as she became aware of this discrepancy. The non-petitioners have not chosen to rebut the averments made in the writ petition by filing reply to the writ

¶26

petition in spite of fact that they were served way back in August, 2019. Request of the non-petitioners to file reply to the writ petition at this stage cannot be entertained. It is not a case where the petitioner is seeking change in date of birth indulging in any fraud or misrepresentation. The Rule 69.2, vide notification dated 01.02.2018 permits correction in the date of birth, if it was on account of typographical error or other errors, if it is consistent with the school

¶27

petitioner, t<+% of birth entered was date of bMtpffwas on account of bonafide error

¶28

cannot be permitted to take which completely of birth, once so recorded in the Boa also, if the Rules of the Board are kept i bstantial justice, the later prevails and petition cannot be

¶29

the Board are kept i later prevails and rejected on technical ple

¶30

There is no fact involved in the writ petition. The writ bllowed. The resoondent no. 3 is directed to regarding date of -x issue the correct and a rmrs for Class loth as well as Class of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

¶31

The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶32

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Pari Jindal D/O Shri Ashoka Rajan v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pari Jindal D/O Shri Ashoka Rajan v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Brij Bala Pareek Vs Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Ors.

Nawal Modani Vs Jatan Singh

Smt. Punam Mathur W/O Shri Mukul Shai Mathur, D/O Late Shri Suraj Prakash Mathur Vs Smt. Kalyani Dutt W/O Late Shri Jitendra Nath

Amba Lal Salvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Savina Bano W/O Mohd. Arif Chajjad Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Kumar S/O Shri Ghamandi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan