Anju Kumari vs Bihar School Examination Board
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.51 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC011019662022
======================================================
Anju Kumari, Daughter of Nand Kishor Yadav, Wife of Sunil Kumar,
Resident of Village- Ramchandrapur, Police Station- Jamalpur, and District-
Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar School Examination Board Patna through its Secretary.
2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
3. The Principal of High School Baijalpur, Gobadda, Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Verma, learned
Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, duly
assisted by Kumar Ravish, learned Advocate for the Bihar
School Examination Board.
2. The petitioner, having secured second division
with 488 marks in matriculation examination from Bihar School
Examination Board, Patna, in the year 1986, after pursuing her
study, got her appointment as a primary teacher. It is submitted
that in course of time, confronted with the error crept in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
2/10
matriculation certificate that her date of birth has been wrongly
mentioned as 05.01.1971 in place of 05.01.1970, she
approached before the respondent Board by filing a detailed
representation along with an application duly forwarded by the
in-charge Principal of the High School, Baijalpur, Gobadda,
Munger, stipulating therein her date of birth as 05.01.1970 as
was duly entered in the admission register.
3. Referring to the admission register, school
leaving certificate, certificate of intermediate examination,
certificate of teachers training examination, as also Aadhaar
Card and PAN Card, it is argued that there is no dispute that the
date of birth of the petitioner is shown to be 05.01.1970.
However, on account of typographical error committed by the
Board, the petitioner suffered an apparent error in her date of
birth, besides a criminal case as well as she lost her post of
primary teacher, which was her bread and butter. The aforesaid
action of the respondent led her to face starvation with her
minor children and miserable condition of her family. In the
aforesaid premise, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary
prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction
upon the respondents to modify and change her date of birth
from 05.01.1971 to 05.01.1970 in the matriculation certificate
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
3/10
issued by the Bihar School Examination Board.
4. Adverting to the facts as recorded hereinabove,
learned Advocate for the petitioner primarily argued that it is not
the case where the petitioner intended to make the necessary
correction in the date of birth in order to get a benefit; rather, the
petitioner needs a correction in her matriculation certificate
from 05.01.1971 to 05.01.1970, which stands recorded in the
school leaving certificate, college leaving certificate, as also the
admission register and other unimpeachable documents.
5. Placing reliance upon a Division Bench decision
of this Court in the case of Tajuddin Khan Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors. : 2014 (3) PLJR 746 , it is submitted that the
Court, while considering the import of Rules 96 and 97 of the
Bihar Financial Rules, categorically observed that the date of
birth mentioned in Rule 96 of Bihar Financial Rules, 1950 is not
mandatory, and in appropriate case, correction of date of birth
may be made even after the expiry of the period mentioned in
Rule 96 of the said Rules.
6. Being conscious of the fact that the petitioner
had participated in matriculation examination long back in the
year 1986, referring to the above mentioned decision, he further
submits that ordinarily the date of birth recorded in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
4/10
government employee’s service book cannot be changed;
however, in appropriate cases, the date of birth of the
government employee concerned as recorded by the competent
Board can be looked into for the purpose of verification.
7. It is further argued that the object behind Rule 96
of the Bihar Financial Rules, 1950 is not to punish a government
employee if his date of birth recorded is of a date earlier than
the date of birth which stands recorded in the relevant records of
the Board or noted in the records of the municipality concerned
was the mandate of the learned Division Bench.
8. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, he has
lastly contended that the period prescribed by the Bihar School
Examination Board for making necessary correction in the date
of birth of a candidate would not come in the way to allow the
present writ petition.
9. Per contra , learned Advocate for the Board,
while refuting the aforesaid contention, submitted that the
request regarding change in date of birth has been made after a
lapse of 32 years, and as a government employee, her plea for
correction in date of birth cannot be entertained after 10 years as
per Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules.
10. Referring to a policy decision dated 27.09.2006
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
5/10
and 18.08.2009 issued by the Bihar School Examination Board,
it is submitted with all vehemence that the time limit for
entertaining application for correction in date of birth would
ordinarily be ten years, except if found in possession of various
documents issued by the Board containing different dates of
birth. Only in such circumstances, based upon the original
document, date of birth can be corrected, which has occurred
due to misprint and/or other reasons.
11. Drawing the attention of this Court to the
materials available in counter-affidavit, learned Advocate for the
respondents further argued that the respondents has scrutinized
the result of the petitioner, and as per the Duplicate Tabulation
Register, Original Tabulation Register, and records of the
petitioner, her date of birth has been found to be 05.01.1971,
and as such, in any view of the matter, the prayer of the
petitioner cannot be allowed.
12. After having careful consideration of the
submissions advanced and the materials available on record, this
Court is of the considered view that undisputedly the petitioner
had appeared in the matriculation examination long back in the
year 1986, and for the first time, the petitioner had approached
this Court for making necessary correction in her date of birth
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
6/10
only when an F.I.R. came to be instituted on being found her
educational certificate to be forged and fabricated, which led to
cancellation of her appointment. During the interregnum period,
no effort whatsoever has been taken in order to show her bona
fide mistake or error in the date of birth.
13. This Court has no confrontation with the settled
proposition that even at the fag end, in exceptional
circumstances, the date of birth of a Government Servant can be
rectified, if the Court is fully satisfied on the basis of irrefutable
proof relating to his/her date of birth. However, in the case at
hand, the Duplicate Tabulation Register and the Original
Tabulation Register, which was prepared long back in the year
1986, clearly stipulates the date of birth of the petitioner to be
05.01.1971.
14. This Court, before parting with the case at hand,
also needs to take assistance of the rulings and the mandate
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in identical matters.
15. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Premlal
Shrivas : (2011) 9 SCC 664, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matters involving correction of date of birth of a government
servant, observed that particularly on the eve of his
superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
7/10
tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious, and careful while
issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the
service book at the time of entry into any government service.
Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of
the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a
claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as
per the consistent procedure adopted by the department
concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been
caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should
be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book.
The Court finally ruled that if a government servant makes a
request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of
a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond
the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of
right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good
evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly
erroneous.
16. In LIC Vs. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the law with
regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again
discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is
entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
8/10
and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. The
Court further ruled that a claim for change in the date of birth
cannot be entertained at the fag end of service.
17. A similar view has been taken in the case of
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P.
Nataraja & Ors. : (2021) 12 SCC 27 , wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has ruled and enunciated the guidelines, which
are as follows:
“11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this
Court the law on change of date of birth can be
summarised as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth
can only be as per the relevant
provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the
same cannot be claimed as a matter of
right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the
ground of delay and laches also more
particularly when it is made at the fag-end
of service and/or when the employee is
about to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation.
12. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions, the application
of the respondent for change of date of birth was
liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
9/10
laches also and therefore as such respondent
employee was not entitled to the decree of
declaration and therefore the impugned judgment
and order [T.P. Nataraja v. State of Karnataka,
2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3510] passed by the High
Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law.”
18. In the light of the afore-noted mandates,
scrutinising the facts in hand, it is obvious that not only the
petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of 37 years, at
the fag end of service, as also after institution of the F.I.R., there
is no cogent, reliable, and irrefutable documents to demonstrate
that her date of birth is 05.01.1970; rather, contrary thereto, the
records available with the Board, especially Duplicate
Tabulation Register and the Original Tabulation Register clearly
demonstrate the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.01.1971.
19. So far the decision of Tajuddin Khan (supra),
upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioner is
concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts for the simple
reason that in the said case, the claim of the petitioner for
change in his date of birth was supported by the records of the
Board. However, in the case at hand, the facts are otherwise and
the claim of the petitioner rests upon contrary to the Board’s
record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.51 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
10/10
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled
position of law, this Court does not find any merit in the present
writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed..
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-utkarsh/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.11.2026
Transmission Date NA