Master Aarav Giri Through Guardian Mr. Abhishek Giri vs St. Columbas School & Anr.

$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Delivered on: 17 July, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 2158/2025
MASTER AARAV GIRI THROUGH GUARDIAN MR.
ABHISHEK GIRI ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Namit Suri,
Mr. Rameezuddin Raja, Mr. Preetpal
Singh and Mr. Anish, Advs.
versus
ST. COLUMBAS SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal, Mr. Akshat
Singh and Mr. Joe Sebastian, Advs.
for R-1.
Mr. Atul Kumar and Mr. Arnav
Kumar, Advs. for R-2/CBSE.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs -
“(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, direction directing the Respondents to rectify
and/or amend its record to reflect the correct date of birth
of the Petitioner being 23.04.2010”
2. The case set out in the present petition is that the petitioner was
admitted to respondent no. 1/school [hereinafter referred to as ‘the school’]
on 01.04.2014. At the time of the petitioner’s admission to kindergarten
(KG), due to an inadvertent error on part of the parents of the petitioner, the
petitioner’s date of birth was recorded in the school records as 23.03.2010
instead of 23.04.2010.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 1 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

3. It is stated that the date of 23.04.2010, which the petitioner asserts to
be the correct date of birth, is consistently reflected in all other public
records of the petitioner. These include a date of birth certificate bearing
registration no. MCDOLR10151635 issued on 05.04.2011 by the Sub-
Registrar/Registrar of Births & Deaths, Delhi, the Aadhaar Card and the
Passport of the petitioner, as well as the records of “Kolmet Hospital &
Medical Research Centre” where the petitioner was born.
4. Further it has been stated that, the identity cards (IDs) issued to the
petitioner by the school for Class V during the academic year 2019-2020
reflected the correct date of birth, i.e., 23.04.2010. Furthermore, this correct
date of birth was also recorded in the identity cards issued for the academic
years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.
5. It is stated that the list as received by the school from respondent
no.2/CBSE [hereinafter referred to as ‘CBSE’], which contains the name of
the students registered with the CBSE on the basis of the data furnished by
the school for class IX, also shows petitioner’s correct date of birth i.e.
23.04.2010 and that the list has also been signed by the petitioner’s parents.
6. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the school,
while submitting the list of candidates to the CBSE, prior to the issuance of
the Class X Board Examination admit cards for the academic session 2025-
2026, had incorrectly mentioned the petitioner’s date of birth as 23.03.2010
instead of 23.04.2010.
7. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father submitted an application
(Annexure P/10) to the Regional Officer of the CBSE, marking a copy
thereof to the Principal of the school, requesting for the correction of
petitioner’s date of birth. However, despite this request, no steps were taken
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 2 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

either by the school or by the CBSE to carry out the necessary correction in
their records.
8. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submits that in the year 2015, Directorate of Education, GNCTD
issued a circular dated 31.07.2015 vide which the procedure for rectification
in students date of birth, inadvertently recorded, was brought to the notice of
the Heads of the Government Aided/Unaided Recognized Schools under
Directorate of Education.
9. He submits that pursuant to the said circular dated 31.07.2015 notified
by the GNCTD, necessary steps were taken in the academic year 2017-2018
by petitioner’s parents, to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner
inadvertently recorded in the records of the school.
10. He further submits that the said rectification was duly effected, as
borne out from the fact that the identity cards (ID) for the academic years
2019-2020, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 (Annexure P-8) were issued to the
petitioner reflecting the rectified and correct date of birth, i.e. , 23.04.2010.
11. However, Mr. Rohatgi submits that, despite the aforesaid rectification
of records, the school while filing up the forms for its students, who are
scheduled to appear for the Class X CBSE Board Examination, prior to the
issuance of the Class X Board Examination admit cards for the academic
session 2025-2026, had incorrectly mentioned the petitioner’s date of birth
as 23.03.2010 instead of 23.04.2010.
12. He further submits that the correct date of birth is 23.04.2010, is
further substantiated by various public documents. To buttress his
contention, he invites attention of the Court to a birth certificate issued on
05.04.2011 by the Sub-Registrar/Registrar of Birth & Death, Delhi; the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 3 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

Aadhaar Card and the Passport of the petitioner as well as the medical
records of “Kolmet Hospital” where the petitioner was born. He submits that
all the aforesaid documents consistently record the date of birth of the
petitioner as 23.04.2010.
13. Furthermore, he submits that the petitioner’s father had made an
application in the year 2024 to the school and CBSE for the correction of the
date of birth, annexing all relevant statutory and public documents, however,
the respondents had failed to respond to the same.
14. He submits that date of birth is an essential requirement for taking
admission in colleges, both within India and abroad, which is determined on
the basis of date being reflected in the marksheet of Class X certificate
issued by the CBSE. If there is any discrepancy in the date of birth of the
petitioner between the class X certificate and the other statutory and public
documents, that will result in serious impediments, and would raise doubt
about the petitioner’s identity.
15. Per Contra , Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the school, submits that pursuant to the admission notification
issued by the school for Kindergarten (KG) admissions for the academic
session 2014-2015, eligibility was restricted to children/students born
between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2010.
16. He submits that the petitioner was granted admission in the school
solely on the basis of the declared date of birth, i.e., 23.03.2010, as
mentioned in the admission form which was duly signed by both the parents
of the petitioner. He contends that this date fell squarely within the
prescribed eligibility range of 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, as notified by the
school. He argues that if the petitioner’s current prayer, claiming the date of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 4 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

birth as 23.04.2010, is accepted, it would render the petitioner ineligible for
admission for KG in the 2014-2015 academic session, thereby rendering the
initial admission of the petitioner void ab initio .
17. Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on the identity cards (ID cards)
issued for the academic sessions 2019-2020, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025, Mr.
Dalal, disputes the contention that the school had rectified the petitioner’s
date of birth in the year 2017. He clarifies that the identity cards relied upon
by the petitioner are printed through an outsourced third-party agency. At no
point in time did the school instruct this third-party agency to change the
date of birth from 23.03.2010 to 23.04.2010. He submits that any
discrepancy in the printed identity cards is a matter attributable to
unauthorized or incorrect data entry by the third-party vendor, on the basis
of information furnished by the parents of the petitioner.
18. Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBSE,
submits that the date of birth, i.e., 23.03.2010, which the petitioner now
contends to be incorrect, was in fact mentioned and filled in the admission
form by the parents of the petitioner themselves, at the time of seeking
admission in the school.
19. He submits that, along with the admission application, a date of birth
certificate was also annexed by the parents of the petitioner, in which the
recorded date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 23.03.2010. He
further submits that on the basis of this document only, the petitioner was
granted admission. Consequently, the relevant entries were made in the
admission register of the school, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner
was duly recorded as 23.03.2010.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 5 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

20. He further submits that the school while submitting the list of
students/candidates to the CBSE for the purpose of registration for the Class
X board examination, submitted the details of the petitioner, wherein the date
of birth reflected was 23.03.2010. He submits that the CBSE cannot change
the date of birth of the petitioner in its records as the present case is not a
case of discrepancy where the date of birth of the petitioner in the CBSE’s
records does not match with the date mentioned in the school records.
21. He submits that as per the examination Bye-Laws of the CBSE,
corrections can be effected by the CBSE essentially to ensure that the
CBSE’s records are consistent with the records maintained by the school. He
submits that in the present case, the date of birth of the petitioner as reflected
in the CBSE records is consistent with the records furnished by the school,
therefore, no ground for correction of date of birth is made out.
22. Mr. Rohatgi, in rejoinder submits that , the Examination Bye-Laws of
the CBSE are not mandatory statutory provisions, but are merely directory in
nature and thus, cannot override genuine claims supported by public
documents. He further submits that all the public documents annexed by the
petitioner, inter alia , the Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, and Passport;
enjoy a legal presumption of correctness as per the explicit provisions
contained under Chapter V of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and the
corresponding Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Such presumption
arises in terms of Section 76 read with Sections 79 and 80 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
23. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that
the short question which arises for consideration in the present petition is
whether a direction can be given by the Court for the correction of date of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 6 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

birth in the records of the CBSE, when the same is consistent with the
records of school.
24. The relevant Bye-Laws of the CBSE, to which the attention of the
Court was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents, shows that the
CBSE can correct the date of birth or other details in the certificate issued by
it if the error is typographical in nature, so as to make it consistent with the
school records. At the same time, the Bye-Laws also mention that the
correction in the date of birth of candidates will be carried out provided such
correction has been admitted by a Court of Law. Bye-Laws 69.2 and 69.3 of
the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws dated 01.02.2018, which provide for the
correction of the date of birth, are reproduced below:
“ 69.2
Change in Date of Birth
No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board’s
records shall be made.
69.3 (Correction in Date of Birth)
A. Correction as per the school records:
i. 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 7 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

forwarded by the Head of the School alongwith attested
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
along with attested copy of the Certificate issued by
the Municipal Authority, if available, as proof of Date
of Birth submitted at the time of seeking admission;
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 along with documents
mentioned in byelaws 69.2(iii) shall be entertained by the
Board only within Five Years of the date of declaration of
result. No correction whatsoever shall be made on
application submitted after the said period of Five Year.
v. This rule will be applicable to all cases after Class X/XII
2015examination onwards.
B. Correction as per Courts Orders.
Applications regarding correction in date of birth of
candidates will be considered provided the correction have
been admitted by the Court of law.
In cases of correction in date of birth in documents after
the court orders caption will be mentioned on the
document “CORRECTION ALLOWED IN DATE OF
BIRTH FROM ________ TO ________ ON (DATED)
_____________ AS PER COURT ORDER NO.
__________ DATED ____________.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. As can be seen from the above-quoted Bye-Laws, there is no
impediment for the Court to order the correction of the date of birth for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 8 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

reasons other than those for which the CBSE can independently carry out
such correction. In other words, the discretion of the Court to order
correction of the date of birth is not confined to make the CBSE records
consistent with the school records.
26. The legality of the Bye-Laws of the CBSE was considered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Jigya Yadav vs CBSE, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 415. The Apex Court also adverted to the question as to when a
Court can order the correction of a date of birth when the CBSE certificate is
consistent with the relevant information furnished in the school records. The
Court observed that if there are public documents, such as a Birth
Certificate, Official Gazette, Aadhaar card, or Election card, which enjoy a
legal presumption of correctness in terms of the explicit provisions
contained in Chapter V of the Evidence Act, 1872, a Court of Law would
permit the desired change in the date of birth based on such documents. In
the event that the party opposing the change rebuts the presumption or
opposes the claim on any other ground, the Court would then permit the
desired change only upon being satisfied as to the genuineness of such
documents. The relevant extracts from the decision in Jigya Yadav (supra)
read thus:
“ 160. The conditions regarding “correction” in name or
date of birth are not as stringent as conditions applicable to
change thereof. For correction in name, the 2018 Bye-laws
provide for a limitation period of five years and permit such
corrections that can be characterised as typographical,
factual or spelling mistake in comparison with school
records. Understandably, a correction would mean
retention of the original record with slight modification to
make it consistent with the school records. This requirement
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 9 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

of modification could be born out of various reasons,
namely, typographical mistake at the time of publishing,
spelling error or factual error i.e. an error of fact as it
existed at the time when the certificate was published. Thus,
correction in name is done to bring unanimity between the
school records (as they existed at the time of sending
information to the Board) and CBSE certificates. However,
if school records are altered afterwards and Board is called
upon to alter its certificates in light of the updated school
records, the same cannot be termed as correction per se but
would be in the nature of recording change. Therefore,
substantially deviating from a “correction”, the Bye-laws
provide for an option to “change” the name, which is
subject to different conditions.
161. Similar provision is available for “correction” in date
of birth, either on the basis of school records or on the
basis of order of court. The word “change” is not used for
date of birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of
birth and there can only be a correction to make it
consistent with school record or order of court. It cannot be
changed to replace the former with a fresh date of one's
choice. Be it noted, provisions relating to correction in date
of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not
impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of
corrections. The restriction regarding limitation period
shall be examined later, along with other provisions.
xxxx xxx xxx xxxx
164. Suffice it to observe that frequent amendments in the
Bye-laws have been made providing for different
dispensations for the relevant period. For the nature of final
directions that we propose to issue, it may not be necessary
to dilate on the validity of the Bye-law concerned as
amended from time to time. Broadly, it can be noted that
the Bye-law recognises two different dispensations. First is
to carry out modifications in the original certificate on
request for making it consistent with the school records of
the incumbent. The second is to incorporate particulars in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 10 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

the original certificate which are different from the school
records.
165. Indisputably, the candidate would pursue further
education and explore future career opportunities on the
basis of school records including the CBSE Board. The
CBSE maintains its official records in respect of candidate
on the basis of foundational documents being the school
records. Therefore, the CBSE is obliged to carry out all
necessary corrections to ensure that CBSE certificate is
consistent with the relevant information furnished in the
school records as it existed at the relevant time and future
changes thereto including after the publication of results
by the CBSE. However, when it comes to recording any
information in the original certificate issued by the CBSE
which is not consistent with the school records, it is
essential that the CBSE must insist for supporting public
document which has presumptive value and in the given
case declaration by a court of law to incorporate such a
change. In that regard, the CBSE can insist for additional
conditions to reassure itself and safeguard its interest
against any claim by a third party/body because of changes
incorporated by it pursuant to application made by the
candidate.
166. In the concluding paragraph, we intend to issue
directions to the CBSE Board in light of the discussion in
this judgment. For the nature of uniform directions that we
propose to issue so as to obviate any inconsistent approach
in the cases under consideration including future cases to
be dealt with by the CBSE Board, it is not necessary for us
to dilate on the question of validity of the respective
amendments in the relevant bye-laws effected from time to
time.
Point 3
Binding value of public documents
167. Whether CBSE is obliged to effect changes in the
certificates issued by it upon production of updated public
documents (other than school records), is the next issue
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 11 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

for consideration. According to the Board, it would not be
permissible as it has no independent mechanism to verify
the genuineness of the public documents. Even under the
Bye-laws, there is no requirement for the Board to verify the
genuineness of the documents. It is simply not the job of the
Board.
168. The bye-laws provide for a two-tier mechanism for
recording change of name or other details (as indicated
above). One of them is prior permission or declaration by
a court of law to be obtained. As regards public documents
like birth certificate, Official Gazette, Aadhaar card,
election card, etc. the same enjoy legal presumption of its
correctness in terms of explicit provisions contained in
Chapter V of the 1872 Act. The 1872 Act extends such
presumption in terms of Section 76 read with Sections 79
and 80 of the 1872 Act and as in the case of Official Gazette
under Section 81 of the same Act. Even other legislations
concerning public documents attach equal importance to
the authenticity of such documents including while making
changes in their certificates to which we have alluded to in
this judgment. Understood thus, there is no reason for the
CBSE Board to not take notice of the public documents
relied upon by the candidate and to record change on that
basis in the certificate issued by it, for being consistent with
the relied upon public documents. It matters not if the
information furnished in the public documents is not entirely
consistent with the school records of the incumbent. The
CBSE while accepting those documents as foundational
documents for effecting changes consistent therewith may
insist for additional conditions and at the same time while
retaining the original entry make note in the form of
caption/annotation in the fresh certificate to be issued by it
while calling upon the incumbent to surrender the original
certificate issued by it to avoid any misuse thereof at a later
point of time. It would be permissible for the CBSE to insist
for a sworn affidavit to be given by the incumbent making
necessary declaration and also to indemnify the CBSE. The
fresh certificate to be issued by the CBSE may also contain
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 12 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

disclaimer of the Board clearly mentioning that change has
been effected at the behest of the incumbent in light of the
public documents relied upon by him. In addition, the
incumbent can be called upon to notify about the change in
the Official Gazette and by giving public notice as
precondition for recording the change by way of abundant
precaution.
xxxx xxx xxx xxxx
170. There is no difficulty in correcting CBSE record to
bring it in conformity with the school record. The difficulty
arises when a statutory document is not consistent with the
school record. As observed earlier, the version supported
by statutory documents could be reckoned for the purpose
of correction in CBSE certificate to make it consistent with
public documents.
171. Post 2018 amendment of Bye-laws, even in case of date
of birth, corrections are permitted on two basis — to bring
in conformity with school records and in pursuance of court
order. The relevant provision reads thus:
xxxx xxx xxx xxxx
172. When a student applies to a court of law for prior
permission and/or declaration and produces public
document(s), the court would enter upon an inquiry
wherein the legal presumption would operate in favour of
the public document(s) and burden would shift on the
party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or
oppose the claim on any other ground. The question of
genuineness of the document including its contents would
be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the court of law
would permit the desired change only upon verifying the
official records and upon being satisfied of its
genuineness. At the same time, the question of justiciability
of the requested changes would be considered and only
upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated by the
student, the court would grant its permission. The said
permission can then be placed before the Board along with
copy of publication in the Official Gazette and requisite
(prescribed) fee (if any). The Board would then have no
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 13 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

locus to make further enquiry nor would be required to
enter upon any further verification exercise.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record a birth
certificate bearing registration no. MCDOLR10151635, issued on
05.04.2011 by the Sub-Registrar, Registrar of Births and Deaths, Delhi. This
certificate, along with the petitioner’s Aadhaar Card, Passport, and the
records of “Kolmet Hospital & Medical Research Centre” where the
petitioner was born, consistently reflect the date of birth of the petitioner as
23.04.2010.
28. The genuineness of above documents has not been disputed by the
respondents. The stand of the respondents, however, is that at the time of the
initial admission of the petitioner to Kindergarten (KG), the application form
filled out by the parents specifically mentioned the date of birth as
23.03.2010.
29. Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the CBSE also submitted that
along with the admission application form, a birth certificate was annexed
by the parents which recorded the petitioner’s date of birth as 23.03.2010.
Likewise, Mr. Dalal contended that this was possibly done by the parents of
the petitioner to make the child eligible for admission in the academic
session 2014-2015, for which eligibility was strictly restricted to children
born between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2010.
30. On the other hand, the stand of the petitioner in the writ petition is
that the mentioning of the date of birth as 23.03.2010 in the application form
was an inadvertent error. However, a copy of another birth certificate, which
has been placed on record by the respondents and indicates the petitioner’s
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 14 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

date of birth as 23.03.2010, has not been controverted or specifically
disputed by the petitioner.
31. It, thus, appears to the Court that at the time of admitting the
petitioner in the school for the academic session 2014-2015 in Kindergarten
(KG), a wrong was committed by the parents of the petitioner in furnishing
an incorrect date of birth along with some supporting birth certificate.
However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already passed Class X
and Class XI and is now a student of Class XII in the school. Furthermore, it
is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner would have been
ineligible to take the Class X board examination on the basis of his correct
date of birth, i.e. 23.04.2010, as borne out from the contemporaneous public
records.
32. At this distant point in time, when the petitioner has continuously and
successfully pursued his education in the school for nearly a decade and has
already passed Class X and Class XI, his initial admission to KG cannot be
declared void ab initio, as sought to be contended by Mr. Dalal, merely on
the ground that the parents of the petitioner furnished an incorrect date of
birth, projecting the petitioner to be younger by one month at the time of his
initial admission.
33. Furthermore, a wrong committed by the parents of the petitioner
cannot be attributed to the petitioner, who was aged just about four years at
the time of his admission and is still a minor.
34. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the date of birth is an
essential requirement for securing admission into colleges, both within India
and abroad, which is determined on the basis of the date reflected in the
Class X certificate issued by the CBSE. If there is any inconsistency in the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 15 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

date of birth of the petitioner as reflected in Class X certificate vis-a-vis
other statutory and public documents, it will result in serious impediments,
including, but not limited to, rejection or unnecessary delays in the
admission process of the petitioner, besides raising doubt as his identity. The
peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, warrant taking of a lenient view.
35. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to allow the writ petition and pass
the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall move an appropriate application(s) for the
rectification of date of birth before the school and the CBSE, along
with all the requisite documents, viz., the Birth Certificate, Aadhaar
Card, and Passport, which reflect the date of birth of the petitioner as
23.04.2010.
(ii) Upon receipt of the application(s) from the petitioner, the
school and the CBSE shall correct the date of birth of the petitioner in
their internal records, and in the Class X CBSE certificate, respectively,
in consonance with the date of birth as reflected in the petitioner’s Birth
Certificate issued on 05.04.2011, Aadhaar Card, and Passport. Such
rectification shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of
four weeks.
(iii) Further, the petitioner’s correct date of birth, i.e., 23.04.2010
shall also be registered by the CBSE for the purposes of the Class XII
Board Examinations, which the petitioner will be taking in the next
year.
36. While the Court has come to the conclusion that no fault can be found
with the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner cannot be allowed to go
scot-free, as they appear to have deliberately furnished incorrect information
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 16 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48

and a document with regard to his date of birth, and thereby resorted to
unethical means. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid
directions shall be subject to the payment of exemplary costs.
37. For deciding the quantum of cost, the Court had posed a query to Mr.
Rohatgi as regards the occupation of petitioner’s father to ascertain his
financial standing. On instructions, Mr. Rohatgi informs that the father of
the petitioner is running schools. In these circumstances, the Court is of the
view that imposition of cost of Rs.2,00,000/- will serve the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the directions mentioned in Para 35 shall be subject to
payment of cost of Rs.2,00,000 /-, to be deposited by the petitioner’s parents
within a period of two weeks.
38. The Court was also informed that the school does not have an EWS
students’ quota or any corpus fund for students belonging to such category,
where the said cost could be deposited. Thus, it is directed that the said
amount shall be deposited by the petitioner’s parents with the Delhi High
Court Bar Association (DHCBA). The DHCBA will utilize the said entire
amount only for supporting the education/higher education of the
children of the staff of DHCBA .
39. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with
pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
JULY 17, 2026
N.S. ASWAL/jg
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2158/2025 Page 17 of 17
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:17.07.2026
19:12:48