Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is in Second Appeal. In brief, the facts of the case as per the plaint, are that the plaintiff was born on 5.5.1980. He took admission in Government Primary School, Morkheri at the age of six years. He studied there for more than three years w.e.f. 28.4.1986 to 28.09.1989 and his date of birth was rightly mentioned in the Migration Certificate issued by the school. Thereafter, the plaintiff had taken admission in Malviya Shiksha Sadan, Ashok Vihar, Sonepat. Since he was weak in studies, therefore, the School gave him admission in K.G. Class where he studied uptil the year 1999 and passed 10th Class. But due to inadvertence, his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate as 1.11.1985 instead of 5.5.1980. According to the plaintiff, he immediately filed an application to the defendant No. 3 who is the principal of the school and also went to the C.B.S.E. Centre at Chandigarh (defendant No. 1) and requested them for the correction of his date of birth and supplied death certificate of his father and his migration certificate to them. The plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that he took admission in 10+1 Class in Saini Senior Secondary School. Prem Nagar, Rohtak, which is affiliated to Haryana Board and had passed his 10+1 and 10+2 Class from that School. After a continuous enquiry about the correction in his date of birth, he again sent an application dated 19.03.2002 for the correction but defendant No. 3 did not take any action. On the contrary, defendant No. 2, vide letter dated 1.5.2002 had declined to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff on the ground that the correction can only be done within two years. This letter/order of rejection dated 1.5.2002 has been challenged in the present case by the plaintiff, alleging the following grounds: (i) That the defendants have erred in not taking into consideration the fact that if the date of birth as mentioned in Matriculation Certificate i.e. 1.11.1985 is right then the plaintiff took admission in Government Primary School, Morkheri on 28.04.1986, then it is unbelievable that how an infant of 6 months took admission in school. (ii) That the defendants have erred in not considering the fact that in the migration certificate, date of birth of plaintiff is rightly mentioned as 5.5.1980 as the plaintiff took admission in this school at about the age of 6 years. (iii) That the defendants have also erred in not considering the fact that the father of the plaintiff late Sh. Prem Chand died on 13.4.1983 then if the date of birth as mentioned in Matriculate Certificate is taken to be correct i.e. 1.11.1985, then it is not at all possible because it means the plaintiff took birth after about 2 years and 7 months of the death of his father, a totally unbelievable and highly irrelevant preposition. (iv) That the defendant No. 2 has also erred in not considering the fact that the defendant No. 3 has even uptil now not sent the previous application and the last one to it (defendant No. 1) for correction of date of birth of the plaintiff as it is the fault of defendant No. 3 due to which wrong date of birth has been got mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. (v) That the defendants have also erred in not considering the fact that if the date of birth of the plaintiff is not corrected, then he will suffer irreparable loses and humiliation in the society and also in the field of education etc.
(2.) ON notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. The suit of the plaintiff was contested on the ground of limitation, averring that the cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff in June, 1999 but the suit has been filed in August 2002 after more than three years, the Court at Rohtak had no territorial jurisdiction as the C.B.S.E. is having its Head Office at New Delhi and as per the Rule 4 of the Examination Bye -laws, only the Courts at New Delhi has the jurisdiction and also on the ground that the date of birth cannot be changed after the expiry of two years, in view of Rule 69.2 of the Examination Bye -laws which has a statutory force of law. In the written statement, Rule 69.2 of the Examination Bye -laws was also mentioned which is reproduced as under: 69.2 Change/Correction in Date of Birth i) No change in the Date of Birth once recorded in the Board's records shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the certificate consistent with the School records can be made provided that corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of application form for admission to Examination to the Board. ii) Such correction in Date of Birth of a candidate in case of genuine clerical errors will be made under orders of the Chairman where it is established to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the wrong entry was made erroneously in the list of candidates/ application form of the candidate for the examination. iii) Request for correction in Date of Birth shall be forwarded by the Head of the School along with the photostat copies of; a) Application for admission of the candidate to the School. b) Portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register where entry in date of birth has been made. c) The School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted at the time of admission. iv) The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of School alongwith documents mentioned in bye law 69.2 (iii) shall be entertained by the Board only within two years of the date of declaration of result of Class X examination. No correction whatsoever shall be made on application submitted after the said period of two years. This will be effective from the examination to be held in March, 1995. The petitioner filed replication in which it was alleged that the suit was not time barred as he was minor at that time and when he attained the age of the majority, then he came to know the actual effect of the date of death of his father and the date of birth wrongly written in his Matriculation Certificate. It is also alleged that the Court at Rohtak has the territorial jurisdiction and so far as Rule 69.2 is concerned, that too, is not applicable.
(3.) ON the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court framed the following issues vide order dated 13.5.2003: 1. Whether the impugned letter dated 1.5.2002 be set aside, as alleged if so to what effect? OPP 2. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 3. Whether the present court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD 4. Relief.;