Virendra Pratap Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84933
1 WA-278-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 278 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010065462026
VIRENDRA PRATAP YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Mr. Anil Khare - Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Priyank Agrawal -
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Vivek Sharma - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/ State.
ORDER
Per: Justice B. P. Sharma
The present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section
2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assailing the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 3851/2023, whereby the Writ Petition
has been dismissed.
2. Heard the IA No.3271/2026, an application for condonation of delay.
Having regard to the reasons assigned in the application and the explanation
furnished for the delay, we are satisfied that the delay of 29 days in filing the
writ appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 24-Oct-26
1:37:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84933
2 WA-278-2026
the delay of 29 days is hereby condoned and IA is allowed.

3. The appellant appeared in the Higher Secondary (Class XI) examination
in the year 1984, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 20.02.1967
instead of 20.02.1969, which he claims to be his actual date of birth. He
relies upon his birth certificate, primary school records and other documents
in support of his claim. The discrepancy was noticed during verification of
his service records, and he made applications for correction in 2010 and
2014, followed by a fresh application pursuant to the Board’s press release
dated 31.01.2022, which was rejected by order dated 11.05.2022. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the request for
correction had been made after an inordinate delay of more than 38 years
from the issuance of the certificate and that no relief could be granted at such
a belated stage.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge
has failed to appreciate that the discrepancy in the date of birth was a clerical
and administrative error attributable to the Board, whereas the appellant’s
birth and school records consistently reflect it as 20.02.1969. It is contended
that the appellant had not remained completely inactive, having approached
the Board in 2010 and 2014 and subsequently submitted another application
pursuant to the press release dated 31.01.2022, which permitted applications
for correction in respect of earlier examination records. According to him,
the impugned order has placed undue emphasis on delay without examining
the documentary evidence establishing the correct date of birth.
5. Learned counsel further relies upon, Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of
Secondary Education, (2021) 7 SCC 535; Central Board of Secondary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 24-Oct-26
1:37:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84933
3 WA-278-2026
Education v. Abdul Shaheen P., 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 23592; Central

Board of Secondary Education v. Prema Evelyn D Cruz, 2025 SCC OnLine
Del 4243; Ajay Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.
25900/2021, decided on 16.10.2023; and Yogita Choudhary v. Board of
Secondary Education through its Secretary, 2023 SCC OnLine MP 5116 . It
is submitted that these decisions recognise the importance of maintaining
accurate public records and establish that a genuine discrepancy in the date
of birth may warrant correction notwithstanding procedural restrictions or
delay, particularly where reliable documentary evidence is available. On this
basis, the appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned order and a direction
to the Board to correct his date of birth or decide the controversy within
reasonable period.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant sought
correction of his date of birth after an inordinate delay of more than 38 years,
despite having used the original certificate for various purposes, including
employment. It is contended that the Board is bound by the applicable
regulations and that the press release dated 31.01.2022 does not confer an
unconditional right to correction. The judgments relied upon by the appellant
are distinguishable, and no illegality is found in the impugned order.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The certificate in question was issued in 1984, whereas the application
forming the subject matter of the impugned proceedings was made in 2022,
after a lapse of more than 38 years. Although the appellant relies upon earlier
applications made in 2010 and 2014, those attempts do not, by themselves,
establish a legal entitlement to correction at any subsequent point of time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 24-Oct-26
1:37:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84933
4 WA-278-2026
The appellant had used the certificate containing the disputed entry for a

considerable period and approached the Court after an extraordinary lapse of
time. The existence of other documents reflecting a different date of birth,
even if relevant to the genuineness of the claim, cannot automatically
overcome the objection of delay and laches or dispense with the
requirements governing correction of educational records.
9. The press release dated 31.01.2022 and the appellant’s contention
regarding dispatch of the application before the deadline also do not, without
further establishing their legal effect on the claim and the applicable
conditions, warrant reversal of the impugned order because it provides the
facility to switch from an offline application process to an online one.
10. The principles reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal
Limited Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411, that a claim for
alteration of date of birth cannot ordinarily be entertained after an employee
has remained in service for decades and approaches the authorities only at
the fag end of his career or immediately before superannuation. The Apex
Court has consistently deprecated belated claims for correction of date of
birth on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence.
11. The judgments cited by the appellant do not persuade us to take a
different view. Upon consideration of the record, we find that the appellant
sought correction of his date of birth in the mark-sheet issued in 1984 only
in the year 2022, after an inordinate delay of more than 38 years. Despite
having ample opportunity to seek correction within a reasonable period, no
timely action was taken, and the subsequent claim, particularly at the last
moment of his service career, cannot be entertained merely on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 24-Oct-26
1:37:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84933
5 WA-278-2026
documents reflecting a different date of birth. Accordingly, the learned

Single Judge has rightly declined relief on the grounds of delay and laches,
and no interference with the impugned order is warranted.
12. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 25.09.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 3851/2023 is affirmed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
VSG

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 24-Oct-26
1:37:57 PM