Whether there is limitation for correction of date of birth as per registration of birth and deaths Act?

In Bailochan Karan v. Basant Kumari Naik, (1999)2 SCC 310,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the judgment in Darshan Singh’s
case (supra) to hold as under:-
“6. In the present case the maximum period of
limitation available to the appellant was only three years
from the date of his attaining majority, in other words,
cessation of the disability. This position has been
considered by this Court in Darshan Singh & Ors. v.
Gurdev Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 585. It is clearly laid down
that Section 8 is a proviso to Sections 6 or 7. A
combined effect of Sections 6 and 8 read with third
column of the appropriate article would be that a person
under disability may sue after cessation of disability
within the same period as would otherwise be allowed
from the time specified therefore in the third column of
the schedule. But such extended period would not be
beyond three years from the date of the cessation of the
disability. Consequently the right to file a suit of the
appellant got expired at the end of three years from the
date of his attaining majority, whether it was 1963 or
1966. In this case it is unnecessary for us to consider
whether the appellant attained majority in 1966 on
completion of 21 years or in 1963 on completion of 18
years as it is not relevant for the purposes of this case.
The plaintiffs, therefore, perfected their title by virtue of
Section 27 of the Limitation Act.”
[45] The right to seek actual date of birth has to be exercised within
three years of attaining the majority on the basis of the birth
certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. But, after
expiry of period of three years from the cessation of disability, no 
person can rely upon the birth certificate. He is bound by the date
given in the matriculation certificate. Therefore, in any case, the right
of a person to seek actual date of birth on the basis of entry in the
birth certificate by the Registrar of Births and Deaths is three years
after attaining the majority on the basis of date of birth in the said
certificate.
[46] We do hope that the schools within the jurisdiction of this Court
insist upon birth certificate issued from the Registrar of Births and
Deaths at the time of admission to the schools so that such date of
birth is correctly reflected in the matriculation certificate. If it is not
being followed, all schools, Government, Public and/or Private, shall
not grant admission to the child unless he produces his birth
certificate from the Registrar, Births & Deaths. Thus, the date of birth
in the school record leading to matriculation certificate would be in
sync with the date of birth from the records of the Registrar of Births
& Deaths.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
 Date of Decision: May 21, 2015
(1) LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M)

 Ambika Kaul V Central Board of Secondary Education and others 


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

[1] This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two Letters
Patent Appeals preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent against LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (2)
the order dated 22.12.2014 in CWP No. 25561 of 2014, which is
subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No. 373 of 2015 and the order
dated 4.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in
CWP No. 15315 of 2014, which is subject matter of LPA No. 1613 of
2014.
[2] Since the issue raised is purely legal, the facts of each case
shall be dealt with later at the appropriate stage. However, the claim
of the writ petitioners is for correction of date of birth on the basis of
the entry in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Births and
Deaths, though in the certificate issued by the Central Board of
Secondary Education, the date of birth mentioned is at variance with
the date of birth available in the records of the Registrar of Births and
Deaths. The requests of the petitioners for correction of date of birth
remained unsuccessful before the learned Single Bench holding that
there is no scope of changing date of birth once it is recorded in the
school records. The learned Single Bench did not agree with the view
expressed by another Single Bench in Parveen Malik v. Central Board
of Secondary Education and others, CWP No. 4767 of 2012 decided on
5.2.2013, but followed his own judgment in Ambika Kaul v. CBSE and
others, (CWP No. 15315 of 2014) subject matter of LPA No. 1613 of
2014. Since the issue is important and arising quite frequently before
this Court, we have examined the issue in detail with the assistance
of the learned counsel for the parties.
[3] In the pre-independent India, the Births, Deaths and Marriages
Registration Act, 1886, was in force, but such Statute had a
restrictive applicability i.e. in terms of Section 11 of the said Act, such
Act was applicable to the members of every race, sect or tribe to which
the Indian Succession Act, 1865 (10 of 1865) applies and in respect of LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (3)
which an order under Section 332 of that Act is not for the time being
in force and all persons professing the Christian religion. Thus, the
applicability of the Act was limited and not to all citizens of this
country. De-hors the said statute, certain Municipalities and the
Panchayats within the jurisdiction of this Court were keeping records
of births and deaths as well.
[4] The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short “the
Act”) was enacted in the year 1969 with an object to have adequate
and accurate country wide data for registration of births and deaths
in the country for the purposes of national planning, organizing public
health and medical activities and developing family planning
programmes. Section 8 of the Act mandates to give information
regarding births and deaths in all conceivable situations including
hospitals, health centers, maternity or nursing homes or other like
institutions, jails, hostels, dharmasalas, boarding houses, lodging
houses or place of public resort or even in respect of any new born
baby or dead body found deserted in a public place. Such information
is required to be entered into the register. Under the Act, there is a
duty upon the authority concerned, to notify the births and deaths
and to certify the cause of death. The registers of births and deaths so
maintained are open to public inspection. Section 23 of the Act,
provides for penalties in case any person who fails without reasonable
cause to give any information which it is his duty to give under any of
the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 or gives or causes to be given, for
the purpose of being inserted in any register of births and deaths, any
information which he knows or believes to be false regarding any of
the particulars required to be known and registered or refuses to write
his name, description and place of abode or to put his thumb mark in
the register as required by Section 11 of the Act. The failure to give LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (4)
any information regarding births and deaths renders the person
responsible for giving such information liable to penal consequences.
Thus the information of births and deaths is mandatory requirement
to be given and entered in the registers meant for the purpose.
[5] The Central Board of Secondary Education, the biggest school
education board in India prescribes the procedure for admission and
the documents required for admission in respect of age. The relevant
extract read as under:-
“6. Admission: General Conditions:
6.1 A student seeking admission to any class in a 'School' will
be eligible for admission to that Class only if he:
(i) has been studying in a School recognised by or affiliated to
this Board or any other recognised Board of Secondary
Education in India;
(ii) has passed qualifying or equivalent qualifying examination
making him eligible for admission to that Class;
(iii) satisfies the requirements of age limits (minimum and
maximum) as determined by the State/U. T. Government and
applicable to the place where the School is located;
(iv) Produces:
(a) The School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate signed
by the Head of the Institution last attended and countersigned,
if required as provided elsewhere, in these Byelaws;
(b) Document(s) in support of his having passed the qualifying
or equivalent qualifying examination; and
*(c) Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth
and Deaths, where-ever existing, as proof of date of birth.”
65. Date of Birth Certificate LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (5)
(i) The Date of Birth of the Candidate as admitted in the
records of the Board shall be indicated in the pass certificate
issued to the candidate at Secondary School level only.
(ii) A candidate can obtain from the Board a Date of Birth
Certificate indicating his date of birth as admitted in the
records of the Board on payment of !he prescribed fee.
69.1 Changes and Corrections in Name
(i) Correction in name means correction in spelling errors,
factual errors, typographical errors in candidate's
Name/Surname, Father's Name/Mother's Name to make it
consistent with what is given in the school record.
Change in name also includes alteration, addition, deletion to
make it different from the school records.
(ii) Application for correction in name may be considered
any time provided that the application of the candidate is
forwarded with the following documents:-
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx
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 alongwith attested Photostat copies
of : LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (6)
(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; and
(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 byelaws 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.”
[6] The Punjab Civil Services Rules as are applicable to the
employees of both the states are pari-matria but some changes have
been made in the respective states. The Rules (Punjab Civil Services
Rules Volume 1 part 1) as it exist in the state of Punjab read as
under:-
“2.5 Age - The day on which a Government employee retires
or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign from service
as the case may be, shall be treated as his last working day.
The date of death shall also be treated as working day.
Note 1.- Every person newly appointed to a service or a post
under Government should at the time of appointment declare
the date of his birth by Christian era with confirmatory
evidence as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence
such as Matriculation Certificate, Municipal birth certificate
and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date
may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined
under note 2 below should be recorded in the History of
Service, Service Book, or any other record that may be kept in
respect of the Government Employee’s service under
Government and once recorded, it can not be altered except in
the case of a clerical error, without the previous orders of
Government (see also Annexure A to this Chapter). LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (7)
Note 2. xxx
Note 3.- For administrative instructions in respect of
alterations in the date of birth see Annexure ‘A’ to this Chapter.
ANNEXURE (A)
 (Referred to in rule 2.5 and Note 3 thereunder)
 1. [ In regard to the date of birth, a declaration of age made
at the time or for the purpose of entry into Government service
shall, a against the Government employee in question, be
deemed to be conclusive. The employees already in the service
of the Government of Punjab on the date of coming into force of
Punjab Civil Services (First Amendment) Rules, Volume-I, PartI,
1994, may apply for the change of date of birth within a
period of two years from the coming into force of these rules on
the basis of confirmatory documentary evidence such as
Matriculation Certificate or Municipal Birth Certificate, etc., No
request for change of date of birth shall been entertained after
the expiry of the said period of two years. Government,
however, reserves the right to make a correction in the
recorded age of the Government employee when it is satisfied
that the age recorded in his service book or in the History of
Service of a Gazetted Government employee is incorrect and
has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the
Government employee may drive some unfair advantage
therefrom]*.
 2. When a Government employee, within the period
allowed, makes an application for the correction of his date of
birth as recorded, a special enquiry should be held to ascertain
his correct age and reference should be made to all available
sources of information such as Certified Copies or entries in
the Municipal Birth Register, University or School Age
Certifciate, Janam Patris or Horoscope. It should, however, be
remembered that it is entirely discretionary on the part of
sanctioning authority to refuse or grant such application and
no alteration should be allowed unless it has satisfactorily
been proved that the date of birth as originally given by the
applicant was a bona-fide mistake and that he has derived no
unfair advantage therefrom.
 3. The result of every such enquiry should, in the case of
gazetted, non-gazetted Government employee be briefly stated LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (8)
in their servie, cards, service books and if a correction is
sanctioned, the factrs should be reported to the Account
General.”
* (1) substituted vide Notification No. 11/4/93-FP-II/4499
dated 21.6.1994.
[7] The correction of date of birth is sought mostly before attaining
the age of superannuation or sometime after joining the public
service. It is generally submitted that the date of birth has been
wrongly recorded in the matriculation certificate and by the School
Education Board as he/she is younger in age relying upon the birth
certificate(s) issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. There have
been numerous cases, which have come up before this Court or other
High Courts regarding the correction in the date of birth, sometime
taking inconsistent views. We have heard learned counsel at length
with a view to reconcile the earlier judgments so as to clarify the law
on the subject within the jurisdiction of this Court.
[8] Firstly, we will give a brief resume of the cases in which the date
of birth has been ordered to be corrected.
[9] Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a Single Bench
Judgment of this Court in Parveen Malik’s case (supra), wherein the
Court directed the respondents therein to consider the application of
the petitioner therein to seek correction in date of birth. Reference
therein was made to the judgments i.e. R.K. Jangra v. State of Punjab
and others, (2009)5 SCC 703; Division Bench judgment of this Court
in Resham Singh v. Union of India and another, 2008(1) PLR 621;
Single Bench judgments of this Court in Shweta Sharma v. State of
Haryana and others, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 442; Pervinder Kumar v.
Secretary, C.B.S.E. Haryana Circle and others, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (9)
237, Karam Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2006(2) RCR (Civil)
755; Single Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Kokilaben J.
Panchal v. Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad, AIR 2006 Gujarat
149 and a Single Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajesh
Kumar Jain v. The Secretary, CBSE and others, (1999) ILR Delhi 377.
In addition thereto, learned counsel for the appellants, relied upon the
judgments of the Single Bench of this Court in Ms. Seerat Khara v.
Central Board of Secondary Education and another, CWP No. 13099
of 2013 decided on 15.7.2013; Bhupinder Singh v. Central Board of
Secondary Education and another CWP No. 6616 of 2009 decided on
7.10.2009 and Balraj Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education
and another, CWP No. 1567 of 2011 decided on 7.7.2011;
[10] As against the aforesaid cases, wherein the date of birth was
ordered to be corrected, there are cases, wherein such request was
declined. Such cases are, a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi
High Court in Bhagwat Dayal v. CBSE and others, 2011(180) DLT
page 1, Single Bench judgments of the Delhi High Court reported as
Abhishek Kumar @ Bal Kishan v. Union of India and others,
2014(144) DRJ 8; and Chirag Jain v. CBSE and others, (2011) ILR 5
Delhi 267 apart from the two judgments in appeal before us.
[11] The development of law on the subject may be now noticed. A
Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Jiwan Dass v.
State of Haryana, (1989)2 ILR (Punjab & Haryana) 110, examined the
Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Financial Rules, as applicable to
the State of Punjab and also the provisions of the Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The Court held to the following effect:-
“15. The basic administrative law governing the conditions of
service in matters of age is laid down in rule 2.5 of C.S.R.
Volume I, Part and rule 7.3 of Punjab Financial Rules, Volume LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (10)
I (supra). The essential feature in these rules is that age/date
of birth at the time of entry into Government service is
recorded as per the declaration made by eh entrant to service
“with confirmatory evidence as far as possible, confirmatory
documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate and so
on” and once recorded it cannot be changed or altered without
previous approval of Government except in the case of a
clerical error. It is obvious from these provisions that a
declaration as to age is assumed as correct and true even
without corroborative evidence or record. The door is, however,
still kept for alteration, and the condition in the rules is that it
can be done only with previous approval of Government. It
should be noted that matters regarding consideration of
requests for alteration in date of birth and grant of “approval of
Government” have not been left to the whim and fancy of the
competent authority, but specific administrative orders in this
behalf have been laid down and incorporated in the service
rules itself as Annexure B to Chapter VII of the Punjab
Financial Rules, Volume I. By this administrative order, the
Government has made it a binding obligation on itself to hold a
special enquiry into all such requests for alteration in date of
birth as are made within two years from the date of entry into
Government service. It is also provided that the result of
enquiry should be briefly stated in the Service book. Obviously,
a speaking order is required to be made on each application if,
it is made within the stipulated period. There can be no two
opinions on the point that matters like date of birth and age
which are vital to service, cannot be left open for indefinite
periods of time, more so because many a time questions of
seniority are determined by age and also because age of
employee is one of the vital statistics for planning of cadres
and careers and replacement schedules. It should be noted
that the statue relating to registration of births and deaths too
bars the departmental authorities from entertaining and
deciding by themselves, requests for registration of births after
expiry of a period of one year and the concerned persons have
to go to a court of law.
16. The limitations on departmental authorities in both
these laws are both reasonable and essential. The more belated
a request of this nature, the more difficult it would be to sort it
out satisfactorily through departmental enquiries. Also, it
could be that while alternation in date of birth might make an LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (11)
employee eligible to remain in service for a longer period, it
might, at the same time, render him ineligible to a benefit
which he may have obtained as a consequence of declaring a
certain date as his date of birth at the time of entering service,
which he subsequently disputes and wishes to have altered. It
is logical that the consequences of alteration in date of birth,
whether beneficial or harmful, must visit upon the person of
the employee who sought the change. Whereas the benefit of
serving for longer years will automatically accrue, the negative
consequences will naturally need a digging out and undoing of
a benefit unduly given, will raise quite a few legal
complications, which in our opinion, should better be agitated
before and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
[12] The court thus held that the limitation on departmental
authorities in both these laws is both reasonable and essential. It also
held that it is logical that the consequences of alteration in date of
birth, whether beneficial or harmful, must visit upon the person of the
employee who sought the change. The Court held that even after the
expiry of the period of two years, the issue can be examined and
assessed by the Civil Court.
[13] Most of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for
the parties are the Single Benches Judgments, except R.K. Jangra’s
case (supra), which is an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and Resham Singh’s case (supra), which is a Division Bench judgment
of this Court.
[14] In R.K. Jangra v. State of Punjab and others, (2009)5 SCC 703,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the representation submitted by
the appellant to be considered in the light of the documents and
material produced by him.
[15] In Resham Singh’s case (supra), the challenge was to an order
passed by the Passport Authorities declining to make the correction in
the passport of the petitioner. The entry in the passport as 23.7.1962 LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (12)
was made on the basis of the matriculation certificate, but in the birth
certificate issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths, the date was
mentioned as 26.5.1962. The Court held to the following effect:-
“11. It was, thus, held that where there is a conflict, between
the date of birth, recorded by the competent authority under
the Births and Deaths Registration Act and the school leaving
certificate, primacy was to be accorded to the birth certificate
issued by the authority under the Registration of Births and
Deaths. It was also held that unless upon verification, the
certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths,
appears to be doubtful or suspicious or the Passport authority
is not satisfied as to its genuineness, then alone would the
Passport authority be justified in declining to effect a
correction in the date of birth and directing an applicant to
seek adjudication, as to his date of birth before a Civil Court.
 xx xx xx
 13. A birth certificate is issued by a Registrar of Births and
Deaths and reflects an entry extracted from the register
maintained by the Registrar under the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969. The aforementioned statute was enacted
to provide for and regulate registration of Births and Deaths
and for matters connected therewith. Section 7 thereof,
requires a State government to appoint a Registrar for each
area comprising the area within the jurisdiction of a
municipality/panchayat or the local authority or any other
area or a combination of any two or more of them. Section 16
of the Act requires every Registrar to keep in the prescribed
form a register of Births and Deaths for the registration of
births and deaths in his area or any part thereof in relation to
which, he exercises jurisdiction. A register of Births and
Deaths is, thus, a public record of births and deaths that occur
within the area assigned to a Registrar. The Register being a
public record, presumption of truth attaches thereto and
consequently to the birth certificate, reflecting an extract from
the Births and Deaths register. A matriculation certificate, on
the other hand, is primary evidence of the marks obtained by a
candidate in a qualifying examination and the date of birth
recorded as an ancillary measure. Primacy would, therefore,
have to be accorded to the date of birth reflected in the birth LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (13)
certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths.”

[16] We respectfully agree with the views expressed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Resham Singh’s case (supra) that the birth
certificate is a public record of births and deaths and must prevail
over the matriculation certificate issued by school authorities. But the
issue required to be examined is that even though the date of birth
recorded in the matriculation certificate is at variance with the date of
birth as recorded in the Register of Births & Deaths, whether such
person is entitled to seek correction in the matriculation certificate
relying upon the birth certificate. We find that he is estopped from
disputing the entry in the matriculation certificate, which is made
basis for employment in the public service in terms of the relevant
recruitment Rules.
[17] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous other judgments i.e.,
Mohd. Hussain v. State of U.P AIR 1964 SC 1625 (Five Judges
Bench); Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982)2 SCC 202
(Three Judges Bench) and Murugan vs. State of T.N., (2011)6 SCC
111 (Two Judges Bench), examined the scope of Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act. It has been held that Section 35 of the Indian
Evidence Act, clearly reveals that there is no legal requirement that
public or other official book shall be kept by a public officer but what
is required is that it should be kept regularly in discharge of official
duties. The Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine of Ante Litem
Motam, which literally translates to `before the lawsuit was started’.
The doctrine means that if something was done before a legal dispute
arose, then it was done at the time when the declarant had no motive
to lie. LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (14)
[18] In Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand, (2008)13 SCC 133, the
Supreme Court was examining the grant of benefit of Juvenile
Justice (Care of Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to an accused. It
was held that that entry relating to date of birth made in the school
register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act though
entry regarding age of a person in school register is not much of
evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of
material on which the age was recorded. The Court held as under:-
“28. It is trite that to render a document admissible under
Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely; (i)
entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official
book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in
issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public
servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of
his duty especially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of
birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible
under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a
person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to
prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on
which the age was recorded (see Mal Singhvi v.Anand Purohit,
1988 Supp SCC 604).”
[19] In Jabbar Singh v. Dinesh and another, (2010)3 SCC 757, a two
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court returned a finding that
the entry of date of birth in the admission form in the school record
does not satisfy the condition laid down in Section 35 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Attention of the Court was not drawn to any of the
judgments referred to above, including the judgment of the larger
Benches. Therefore, the judgment in Jabbar Singh’s case (supra),
cannot be said to be binding decision in the face of the judgments of
the larger Bench. Thus, we find that the entries made in the school
register, be it Government or private school, much before any issue of
correct date of birth arises for consideration are relevant, in terms of
Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It satisfies the test i.e. entries made in LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (15)
a public record, in the case of the Government school or official book
in the case of the private school. The entry of date of birth is a
relevant fact and that it is made by a public servant in discharge of
his official duties in case of a Government school and in performance
of a duty enjoined by law in case of a private school. Thus entries of
date of birth made in the School records are relevant.
[20] The relevance of the entries in the Municipal or Panchayat
records has undergone a complete sea change with the enactment of
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. As per Section 8 of
the said Act, the birth is required to be reported to the Registering
Officer in all conceivable situations. The reporting of birth, if not made
within the prescribed period, is permitted after payment of fine again
for delay in reporting. The failure to report birth incurs the risk of
prosecution and the penalties. Thus, such provision of recording of
date of birth with the Registrar of Births and Deaths is mandatory.
[20-A]. Therefore, we find that the issue is required to be examined in
respect of the persons born prior to the commencement of the Act i.e.
when recording of date of birth was not a statutory requirement and
the persons born after the enactment of such Act, when it was a
mandatory condition of recording the date of birth.
[21] In respect of the persons born prior to the applicability of the
Act in the Punjab & Haryana and Chandigarh, in the absence of any
statutory provisions in respect of the birth, the entry in the
matriculation certificate in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence
Act, was considered to be a relevant document. A matriculation
certificate issued by the School Education Board was made basis of
age while entering Government service as per the Civil Services Rules,
as reproduced above and applicable in this part of the country. LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (16)
Therefore, even if there was discrepancy between the date of birth in
the Municipal record and in the horoscope etc., then the date of birth
in the matriculation certificate was made basis of age for the purposes
of Government service that is on the basis of document which meets
the test of public document in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence
Act. However, it was subject to change in the manner prescribed in
the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Financial Rules. Though on
the basis of the doctrine of Ante Litem Motam, a person cannot be
permitted to dispute the entry of the date of birth in the matriculation
certificate, yet the limited right granted to the Government servant
could be exercised only in the manner contemplated in Annexure-A, of
Punjab Civil Services Rules, as reproduced above. Para 2 of the
Annexure A has lost its purpose after enactment of the Act, where the
reference is made to other sources of information such as Janam
Patris or Horoscope.
[22] But In respect of the persons born after the applicability of the
Act, the matter requires to be examined from a different angle. The
Act gives statutory recognition to the birth certificates. It is a
mandatory requirement for all persons in all conceivable situations to
report about the birth and death to the Registration Officers. The
Central Board of Secondary Education makes it mandatory to produce
date of birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths,
wherever existed, as proof of date of birth. If a person does not give
date of birth certificate issued by the Registrar at the time of
admission to a school, he does it at his own peril. Once he has
disclosed a particular date of birth, completed education; he is
estopped to rely upon the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of
Births and Deaths, at a later stage of life. The admission to a School
is to be based upon a date given by the candidate, which date LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (17)
continues to be reflected in the matriculation certificate as well.
Therefore, once a candidate has completed his education on the basis
of an assumed date, in conflict with the birth certificate issued by the
Registrar of Birth and Deaths, he is estopped to rely upon the birth
certificate at the later stage of life.
[23] The Central Board of Secondary Education permits correction in
spellings, factual and typographical errors so as to be in tune with the
date given in the admission form. The date of birth cannot be
permitted to be corrected in terms of the regulation of the School
Board merely because in a birth certificate issued by the Registrar,
there is a different date than what is mentioned in the matriculation
certificate. The correction permitted is of clerical mistakes from the
details given in the admission form. It does not entitle a student to
seek complete change of date of birth than given in the admission
form from the Central Board of Secondary Education.
[24] The tendency of the people of this country to give older date of
birth in the matriculation examination to qualify in the matriculation
examination but then to rely upon the birth certificate that he is
younger in age at the time of employment, cannot be countenanced.
No premium can be given to a candidate having qualified
matriculation examination with a particular date of birth on the
ground that he came to know about his correct date of birth later. It is
giving a premium to one for one’s own conscious action.
[25] For the sake of brevity, we are not referring to the Single Bench
Judgments, some taking a view that the School Education Board can
be directed to correct the date of birth and some taking the contrary
view, but the question as whether a candidate is estopped to dispute
the date of birth in the matriculation certificate has not been LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (18)
examined in the Single Bench Judgments of this Court or in Resham
Singh’s case (Supra).
[26] The Rule of estoppel was also applied by the Supreme Court in
a judgment reported as Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical
Education and another v. Shant Kumar Agarwal, AIR 2013 SC 1544,
when the Court found that since at the time of joining as Lower
Division Clerk, the respondent therein did not produce any evidence
showing his date of birth as 15.1.1948 as against 20.2.1942 as
mentioned in the matriculation certificate. The Court held that if he
had the certificate issued under the 1969 Act, there was no reason for
not producing the same, but producing other record as proof of his
date of birth is not tenable. Therefore, the candidate was not
permitted to rely upon the birth certificate. The relevant findings are
as under:-
“21. There is another reason for our inclination to set aside the
impugned judgment. At the time of joining as Lower Division
Clerk in the office of Commissioner, Settlement and Director of
Land Records, Madhya Pradesh, the respondent did not
produce any evidence showing his date of birth as15.01.1948.
At the time of his appointment in 1986 as Personal Assistant
in the employment of appellant No.1, the respondent did not
produce birth certificate dated 25.2.1970 issued by the
Corporation. Rather, he got the date of birth entered in the
service book by producing copy of the judgment of the trial
Court, which had already been set aside by the lower appellate
Court on 27.7.1977.
If the respondent was possessed with the certificate
issued by the Corporation under the 1969 Act, then there was
no earthly reason for not producing the same for the purpose
of recording of date of birth in the service book. However, the
fact of the matter is that instead of relying upon the birth
certificate, the respondent produced copy of the judgment of
the trial Court and got his date of birth recorded as
15.1.1948by suppressing the fact that the lower appellate LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (19)
Court had reversed the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore,
the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error
by setting aside the orders passed by learned Single Judge.”
[27] In Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy, (1997)4 SCC 647, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while applying the principle of estoppel held
as under:-
“25. In matters relating to appointment to service various
factors are taken into consideration before making a selection
or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the
age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be
possible to conclusively prove that an advantage had been
gained by representing a date of birth which is different than
that which is later sought to be incorporated. But it will not be
reasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first
instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is
obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of
that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the
appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a
responsible office. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to
assess suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to
be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case,
it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person
because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to
be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a
situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a
change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. This
being so, we find it difficult to accept the broad proposition
that the principle of estoppel would not apply in such a case
where the age of a person who is sought to be appointed may
be a relevant consideration to assess his suitability.
 26. In such a case, even in the absence of a statutory rule
like Rule 16-A, the principle of estoppels would apply and the
authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter
the date of birth. If such a decision is challenged the court also
ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of
birth, as originally recorded, was incorrect because the
candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth
to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that that
would be to his advantage. Once having secured entry into the LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (20)
service, possibly in preference to other candidates, then the
principle of estoppels would clearly be applicable and relief of
change of date of birth can be legitimately denied. To that
extent the decision in Manak Chand Vaidya v. State of H.P.
(1976)1 SLR 402, does not lay down the correct law.”
[28] In State of Punjab v. S.C. Chadha, (2004)3 SCC 394, the
Supreme Court again applied the principle of estoppel as to why he
did not move an application to get the date of birth corrected when
certificate was issued. The Court held to the following effect:-
“14. In the instant case the higher secondary examination
certificate was issued on 3.6.1962 which contained information
that the date of birth of the respondent was only 19.6.1944. If
the said certificate disclosed a wrong date, it is not explained
by the respondent as to why he did not make any move to get it
corrected at that point or on any one of the occasions when he
sought and obtained employment in 7/8 public institutions.
Merely because in 1994 an opportunity was granted to the
government employees to get their date of birth correct, that
does not take away the effect of inaction and continued silence
for more than three decades, which dehors laches on his part
would seriously reflect on the bona fide nature of the claim
itself. Even in the application made for employment in the year
1992-93, the date of birth was indicated, as noted above to be
19.6.1944. No contemporaneous document was produced to
show that recording of the date of birth to be 19.6.1944 was
wrong. Accepting the plea of the respondent would result in
two public records, educational on one side and service on the
other reflecting two different and conflicting dates of birth.
Such anomalous situations are to be averted and not to be
countenanced.”
[29] The Rule of estoppel was also extended in a case reported as
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Bajrangi Rabidas, (2014)13 SCC 681, when
it has been held as under:-
“19. The controversy can be viewed from another angle.
Thereafter, the learned Judges opined that there is no
justification in the proposition that principle of estoppels would
not apply in such a situation. As is manifest, in the case at LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (21)
hand the respondent stated this on the higher side to gain the
advantage of eligibility and hence, we have no trace of doubt
that principle of estoppels would apply on all fours. It is well
settled in law that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The
power of the High Court is required to be exercised “to reach
injustice wherever it is found”. In Sangram Singh v. Election
Tribunal, (1997) 4 SCC 647, it has been observed that
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to be
exercised whenever there is an error of law. The powers are
purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon
that discretion, it must be exercised along recognized lines and
not arbitrarily and one of the limitations imposed by the courts
on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in such
class of cases unless substantial injustice has ensued or is
likely to ensue. That apart, the High Court while exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can always
take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances and pass
appropriate directions to balance the justice. The jurisdiction
being extraordinary it is required to be exercised keeping in
mind the principles of equity. It is a well known principle that
one of the ends of equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If
a person has taken an undue advantage the court in its
extraordinary jurisdiction would be within its domain to deny
the discretionary relief. In fact, Mr. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants, has basically rested his submission
on this axis. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench has
erred in extending the benefit to the respondent who had taken
undue advantage by not producing the Matriculation
Certificate solely on the motive to get an entry into service. It is
apt to note here that this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
Shib Kumar Sushad, (2000)8 SCC 696, has ruled that the
decision on the issue of date of birth of an employee is not only
important for the employee but for the employer also.”
[30] In B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003)2 SCC 355, the
Court held that the rule of estoppel is a rule of evidence and the
general rule is enacted in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act,
which lays down that one person has by his declaration, act or
omission caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (22)
true and to act upon that belief, neither he nor his representative
shall be allowed in ay suit or proceeding between himself and such
person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing. It was
held as under:-
“13. Estoppel is a rule of evidence and the general rule is
enacted in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in
short 'Evidence Act') which lays down that when one person
has by his declaration, act or omission caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon
that belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed in
any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his
representative to deny the truth of that thing. [See Sunderabai
and Anr. v. Devaji Shankara Deshpande, AIR 1954 SC 82.
 xx xx xx
15. On the whole, an estoppel seems to be when, in
consequences of some previous act or statement to which he is
either party or privy, a person is precluded from showing the
existence of a particular state of facts. Estoppel is based on the
maxim, allegans contrarir non est audiendus (a party is not be
heard to allege the contrary) and is that species of presumption
juries et de jure- (absolute or conclusive or irrebutable
presumption), where the fact presumed is taken to be true, not
as against all the world, but against a particular party, and
that only by reason of some act done; it is in truth a kind of
argumentum ad hominem.
 xx xx xx
19. Estoppel, then, may itself be the foundation of a right as
against the person estopped, and indeed, if it were not so, it is
difficult to see what protection the principle of estoppel can
afford to the person by whom it may be invoked or what
disability it can create in the person against whom it operates
in cases affecting rights. Where rights are involved estoppel
may with equal justification be described both as a rule of
evidence and as a rule creating or defeating rights. It would be
useful to refer in this connection to the case of Depuru
Veeraraghava Reddi v. Depuru Kamalamma, AIR 1951 Madras
403 where Vishwanatha Sastri, J., observed:- LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (23)
 "An estoppel though a branch of the law of evidence is
also capable of being viewed as a substantive rule of law
in so far as it helps to create or defeat rights which
would not exist and be taken away but for that
doctrine."
20. Of course, an estoppel cannot have the effect of
conferring upon a person a legal status expressly denied to him
by a statute. But where such is not the case a right may be
claimed as having come into existence on the basis of estoppel
and it is capable of being enforced or defended as against the
person precluded from denying it.”
[31] In Bhagwat Dayal’s case (supra), the Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court raised a plea of estoppel when it found that the
appellant did not challenge or ask for change of date of birth even
though he appeared in Class 10 in the year 2000 and in All India
Secondary Certificate examination in the year 2003. Therefore, the
mistake said to have come to his notice in January, 2010 when the
appellant was appearing in the Civil Services Examinations, has been
rightly not accepted. The Court held as under:-
“8. In the present case, class 10 certificate is dated 3rd
June, 2000. Thereafter, the appellant had appeared in the All
India Secondary School Certificate Examination in the year
2003. At that time also, the appellant did not challenge or ask
for change of the date of birth or the name of his father. The
plea taken by the appellant that he could not observe the
aforesaid mistake till January, 2010 when the appellant was
appearing in Civil Services Examination has been rightly not
accepted. The appellant had obtained a certificate from Health
Department of Government of Haryana on 2nd February, 2010
and then had approached CBSE and his school……..”
[32] The said judgment has been followed by the learned Single
Bench in Chirag Jain’s case (supra), when it recorded the following
observation:-
“10. The 10th certificate issued by the CBSE goes with the
life of a student as this certificate is the authenticated proof of LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (24)
the date of birth of a student. Such certificate is invariably
accepted as a valuable piece of evidence in proof of date of
birth and age of the applicant throughout his career ahead and
even the courts attach a high degree of probative value to the
certificate and the date of birth as entered in the certificate is
accepted as almost binding. A student and his/her parents
have to be very careful, alert and vigilant while disclosing the
date of birth at the time of submission of forms for the
examination of 10th class as any error at that stage certainly
can prove fatal. ……………………………. In the face of all these
documents, it is hard to believe that the parents of the
petitioner and the petitioner himself would keep committing
the mistake in furnishing the said date of birth. The
particulars in the certificates, especially the date of birth carry
with them a prima facie guarantee of correctness as they are
furnished by the parents or the applicant himself and hence it
is difficult to assume that they are false or incorrect. Date of
birth is something that no parent or child can forget or mistake
and while receiving the certificate if there is a mistake then the
student would make out within no time the mistake in the
certificate and take steps for immediate rectification.”
[33] LPA No. 697 of 2011 against the judgment in Chirag Jain’s case
(supra) was dismissed on 29.8.2011 and SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 30.9.2013.
[34] The plea of estoppel has been extended in numerous cases, in
respect of the date of birth in this court as well. One of the cases is
reported as Amit Chillar v. State of Haryana and another, 2008(6) SLR
236, wherein a Division Bench of this Court applied the principle of
estoppel, as extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Rama
Swamy’s case (supra). The Court held to the following effect:-
“8. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that
the certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Death must
prevail over the matriculation certificate issued by the Board or
the University for the purposes of date of birth has also not
impressed us because the petitioner himself has declared his
date of birth in the application form to be 17.2.1986. He has, LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (25)
however, later on placed reliance on the certificate issued by
the Registrar, Births and Deaths showing his date of birth to
be 27.2.1985. The certificate of matriculation has been issued
to the petitioner long time ago. But no effort was made by the
petitioner to get it corrected in accordance with the certificate
of the Registrar, Births and Deaths. The petitioner cannot be
permitted to carry two certificates and claiming two different
dates of births, which could be used on different occasions as
per his convenience. Such a course would result into
iniquitous result and the Courts cannot approve such a
conduct. Therefore, the principle esstoppel would fully apply to
the facts of the present case as has been held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy, (1997)4
SCC 647.”
[35] We may notice that in the judgment reported as Hari Prasad
Handa vs. The State of Punjab,1985(1) PLR 39, a learned Single
Judge, distinguished the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court
reported as Bathul Gabriel v. District Manager, APSRTC Kurnool,
1982(1) SLR 576 to hold that the rule of estoppel would not debar a
candidate from claiming and to prove that the date of birth given
earlier in the certificate was not the correct one. Another Single Bench
of this Court in State of Haryana v. Chander Singh alias Chander
Bhan, 1988(2) PLR 264, followed the judgment in Hari Prasad
Handa’s case (supra).
[36] The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bathul Gabriel’s case
(supra) held as under:-
 “12. Man is born only once. He lives only once and however
great a coward he might be, he dies only once. To this
universal law of nature, those in public services should not try
to constitute any exception.
 13. The petitioner in this case at the time of his
appointment had given his date of birth as 18.9.1924. That
date of birth was accepted by the employer and the very
appointment of the petitioner was based on a contract of which
that date is a term. The petitioner, cannot, now take the benefit LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (26)
of this contract of employment and repudiate the disadvantage
of a term of that contract relating to his date of birth…….”
[37] We find the judgment of this Court in Hari Prasad Handa’s case
(supra), is not the correct enunciation of law in the light of the
judgments of this court as well of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A
candidate represents a particular date of birth while taking admission
in the school much before any dispute about age is raised and he
continues to rely upon the same till he joins public employment,
therefore on the basis of doctrine of Ante Litem Motam, he cannot be
permitted to dispute the entry of the date of birth in the matriculation
certificate. Once, he has represented a particular date of birth, he is
estopped to claim any other date of birth. Therefore, having
represented and grown with a particular date of birth, to turn round
to say that his date of birth is different, is not permissible in view of
the principle of estoppel.
[38] On the basis of the judgments referred to above, it can be safely
concluded that entry from the office of the Registrar Births and
Deaths carries a presumption of correctness being maintained by a
public office in discharge of the official duties. But even though the
date of birth is recorded differently in the certificate of birth than in
the matriculation certificate, the rule of estoppel will apply. No person
will be entitled to dispute the same under the guise to correct the
mistake in the entry of date of birth in the matriculation certificate.
He has taken admission in the school on the basis of a given date of
birth and qualified the same. It will be unreasonable to infer that the
candidate or his parents, who admitted the child to the school, were
not aware of the correct date of birth. The rule of estoppel debars the
candidate or a person to dispute the date of birth given in the 
matriculation certificate if it is not in sync with the certificate issued
by the Registrar of Births & Deaths.
[39] The correction contemplated to be carried under By-law 69.2 is
in respect of the clerical mistake. Clerical mistake is not an entry of
actual date of birth. Clerical mistake is that while recording the date
of birth, by mistake, some digit of date of birth was wrongly recorded
by oversight or inadvertently. It is only the correction of clerical
mistake not requiring any intrinsic evidence to support such mistake,
which is permissible under the said by-laws. Therefore, by-law 69.2
does not authorize any person to seek correction of date of birth as
mentioned in the registers of births and deaths.
[40] The other question which may arise is that the date of birth was
given in the school records by the parents of a child when he was
minor, therefore a minor on attaining the date of majority can dispute
the date of birth given in the matriculation certificate.
[41] Section 6 of the Limitation Act, gives a right to the person
suffering from legal disabilities including a minor to assert his rights
after the cessation of such disability. The right to seek correction in
the actual date of birth on the basis of certificate issued by the
Register, Births and Deaths, is not free from doubt after long years on
the basis of rule of estoppel, but for the purposes of the present
appeals, we will assume that a person has a legal right to seek
correction of his date of birth on attaining the majority.
 [42] The fact is that every person grows with the date of birth as
mentioned in the matriculation certificate. He is aware of such date of
birth. Giving allowance of minority will lead to uncertainties and
inconsistencies in the records of public authorities. Therefore, though
a person is estopped to dispute the date of birth entry recorded in 
matriculation certificate, but even if he approaches the Civil Court to
seek exclusion of the minority period in terms of Section 6 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, such suit cannot be entertained after three
years from his alleged date of attaining the age of majority. In no case,
the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate should be
corrected after three years of attaining majority on the basis of date of
birth in the birth certificate.
[43] In Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh, (1994)6 SCC 585, the
Hon’ble supreme Court held that Section 6 of the Limitation Act,
alone gives rights and enlarges the limitation and entitles the minor or
insane, or an idiot, to institute a suit or make an application within
the same period after the disability has ceased. The Court held to the
following effect:-
“….third column of the Schedule might have expired by
efflux of time, Section 6 elongates the right and enlarges the
limitation and entitles the minor, insane or idiot to institute
the suit or make the application within the same period
prescribed in the third column of the Schedule to the Act, after
the disability to which the minor, the insane or the idiot has
been subjected to, ceased. Section 8 makes special exception
to Section 6. In other words, notwithstanding the availability
of limitation in the third column of the Schedule prescribed
under the relevant article, the suit or application shall be filed
within three years from the cessation of the disability or the
death of a person affected thereby engrafting the language
thus:
"8. Special exceptions.- Nothing in Section 6 or in
Section 7 applies to suit to enforce rights of
preemptions, or shall be deemed to extend, for more
than three years from the cessation of the disability
or the death of the person affected thereby, the period of
limitation for any suit or application."
4. In other words, Section 8 is a proviso to Section 6 or 7.
combined effect of Sections 6 and 8 read with third column of 
the appropriate article would be that a person under disability
may sue after cessation of disability within the same period as
would otherwise be allowed from the time specified therefor in
the third column of the Schedule but special limitation as an
exception has been provided in Section 8 laying down that
extended period after cessation of the disability would not be
beyond three years from the date of cessation of the disability
or death of the disabled person.”
[44] In Bailochan Karan v. Basant Kumari Naik, (1999)2 SCC 310,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the judgment in Darshan Singh’s
case (supra) to hold as under:-
“6. In the present case the maximum period of
limitation available to the appellant was only three years
from the date of his attaining majority, in other words,
cessation of the disability. This position has been
considered by this Court in Darshan Singh & Ors. v.
Gurdev Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 585. It is clearly laid down
that Section 8 is a proviso to Sections 6 or 7. A
combined effect of Sections 6 and 8 read with third
column of the appropriate article would be that a person
under disability may sue after cessation of disability
within the same period as would otherwise be allowed
from the time specified therefore in the third column of
the schedule. But such extended period would not be
beyond three years from the date of the cessation of the
disability. Consequently the right to file a suit of the
appellant got expired at the end of three years from the
date of his attaining majority, whether it was 1963 or
1966. In this case it is unnecessary for us to consider
whether the appellant attained majority in 1966 on
completion of 21 years or in 1963 on completion of 18
years as it is not relevant for the purposes of this case.
The plaintiffs, therefore, perfected their title by virtue of
Section 27 of the Limitation Act.”
[45] The right to seek actual date of birth has to be exercised within
three years of attaining the majority on the basis of the birth
certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. But, after
expiry of period of three years from the cessation of disability, no 
person can rely upon the birth certificate. He is bound by the date
given in the matriculation certificate. Therefore, in any case, the right
of a person to seek actual date of birth on the basis of entry in the
birth certificate by the Registrar of Births and Deaths is three years
after attaining the majority on the basis of date of birth in the said
certificate.
[46] We do hope that the schools within the jurisdiction of this Court
insist upon birth certificate issued from the Registrar of Births and
Deaths at the time of admission to the schools so that such date of
birth is correctly reflected in the matriculation certificate. If it is not
being followed, all schools, Government, Public and/or Private, shall
not grant admission to the child unless he produces his birth
certificate from the Registrar, Births & Deaths. Thus, the date of birth
in the school record leading to matriculation certificate would be in
sync with the date of birth from the records of the Registrar of Births
& Deaths.
Now the facts of the two Appeals.
LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (Ambika Kaul vs. CBSE and others)
[47] In this case, the School certificate records the date of birth as
4.7.1992, whereas she has claimed that her actual date of birth is
4.7.1991. She has approached this Court in the year 2014 i.e. when
on the basis of her actual birth certificate she was more than 21 years
of age. Thus, she could not seek correction of date of birth on the
basis of the certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths.
The Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the correction in date
of birth must have been applied within three years of her attaining
the age of majority. In view thereof, we do not find any error in the LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M) &
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (O&M) (31)
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, LPA No. 1613 of
2014 is dismissed.
LPA No. 373 of 2015 (Shubham Attri v. CBSE and others).
[48] In this case, the School records mention 12.6.1996 as
appellant’s date of birth, whereas the date of birth as per the birth
certificate is 12.6.1995. The writ petition was filed in the year 2014
i.e. within three years of attaining majority on the basis of the actual
date of birth. The Rules of the Central Board for Secondary
Education, do not permit any change of date of birth, except in the
case of clerical or arithmetical mistake that too on the basis of entries
in the admission form. Though, the appellant should have been
directed to approach the Civil Court, yet since he has approached this
Court without taking an advantage of matriculation certificate for any
purpose and seeks correction in the date of birth for the purpose of
obtaining passport, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondentBoard
to alter his date of birth to be the same as in the birth
certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths. The appeal
stands disposed of accordingly.
 (HEMANT GUPTA)
 JUDGE
 (LISA GILL)
 JUDGE
May 21, 2015
 ds 

Print Page