- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 25.1.2012 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent - Board, thereby rejecting the request of the petitioner for carrying out the correction in his date of birth, on the basis of birth certificate (Annexure P-1), issued by the Sub-Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Sonepat. Facts first. Petitioner, while studying in South Point Public School, Sonepat-respondent No. 3, passed his examination of 12th class. Respondent-school was duly recognised by and affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is the regional office of respondent No. 1. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that his date of birth in the certificate, issued by respondent-board, was incorrectly recorded as 10.6.1993, whereas his correct date of birth, as per the birth certificate (Annexure P-1), issued by the Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths, Sonepat, was correctly recorded as 10.6.1992. Petitioner got issued his birth certificate (Annexure P-1) from the office of Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths, Sonepat, for the purpose of applying for the passport. From the certificate (Annexure P-1), petitioner came to know that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the school record as 10.6.1993 instead of 10.6.1992. Faced with this situation, petitioner applied to the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth, to be in accordance with the birth certificate (Annexure P-1). The Principal of respondent-school, vide his letter dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-3), forwarded all the relevant documents of the petitioner, available in the school record, to respondent No. 2, vide Annexures P-4 to P-8. Respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 24.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) sought certain information from the petitioner, including the birth certificate issued by the Municipal corporation or Registrar, Births and Deaths. In response to the communication (Annexure P-2), all the documents sought by respondent No. 2 were supplied. However, when no action was being taken by the respondent authorities, an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 was moved to respondent No. 2 on 24.10.2011, which was replied vide communication dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-9), informing the father of the petitioner, that the case of the petitioner has been forwarded to respondent No. 1, for approval of competent authority of the board. Thereafter, father of the petitioner was informed under the Right to Information Act, vide impugned communication dated 25.1.2012 (Annexure P-10), that the competent authority of the respondent-board has rejected the case of the petitioner, for correction in the date of birth, as it was not permissible as per rules of examination bye-laws of the Board.
(2.) Having been left with no other option, petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, a joint written statement was filed by respondent No. 2, on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the birth certificate of the petitioner appended at Annexure P-1, has been issued by the competent authority. The document is coming from public record of birth and deaths, maintained by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, under Section 16 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Its genuineness and authenticity can not be doubted, nor it has been, as a matter of fact, doubted by the respondent-board, while declining the genuine and reasonable request of the petitioner. He further submits that it is not the case set up by the respondents, that the respondent-board was not competent to carry out the correction sought by the petitioner in his date of birth. The only misconceived ground for rejection pointed out was, that it was not permissible as per rules of examination by-laws of the respondent-Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that, as a matter of fact, the impugned order was a non speaking and cryptic one, on the face of it. Authenticity or genuineness of the birth certificate Annexure P-1 has neither been considered nor discarded but altogether ignored illegally, as there is not even a passing reference thereof in the impugned communication. He submits that a combined reading of Rule 69.2 of the bye-laws would show that respondent-board was very much competent, to carry out the correction in the date of birth of the petitioner, it being only a genuine clerical error. Moreover, the petitioner was not going to gain anything out of it, as the petitioner was seeking an increase in his age by one year, i.e. from 1992 to 1993, the date and month remaining the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication was arbitrary on the face of it and was not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing this writ petition. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Jangra v. State of Punjab and others,, 2009 5 SCC 703. He also relies upon two judgments of this court in Resham Singh v. Union of India and another, 2008 1 SCT 11and Shweta Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, 2011 3 RCR(Civ) 442.;