Rewant Ahlawat vs Central Board Of Secondary Education
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 10.04.2026
% Judgment delivered on: 04.06.2026
+ LPA 647/2024
REWANT AHLAWAT .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Ms. Rajul Jain,
Ms. Poorvi Rewalia, Mr.Manikant
Sharma, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manisha Singh, ASC for CBSE.
Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms. Usha
Jamnal, Adv. for R-2 &3.
Ms. Arti Bansal, ASC for R-4/MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
J U D G M E N T
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. The appellant by instituting W.P.(C) 3578/2024 made a prayer seeking
a direction to the respondent-Central Board of Secondary Education
( hereinafter referred to as ‘CBSE’ ) to correct its record by changing his date
of birth ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ DOB ’) from 14.09.2000 to 14.09.1999. It
th
was also prayed, that accordingly, a fresh Class 10 Board Examination
Certificate be issued to the Appellant herein.
2. On record, there are two birth certificates issued under the provisions
of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ( hereinafter referred to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 1 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
as ‘ Act, 1969 ’). The first birth certificate refers the DOB of the appellant as
14.09.2000 whereas, the second birth certificate records his DOB as
14.09.1999. The date of registration as mentioned in the first certificate is
07.12.2002 where the place of birth of the appellant is shown to be Police
Quarters, Naraina, whereas the second birth certificate shows the date of its
issuance to be 26.11.2023 where the place of birth of the appellant is
recorded as Jaipur Golden Hospital.
3. The DOB of the appellant came to be recorded in the Secondary
School Examination Certificate issued by the CBSE as 14.09.2000. The said
th
certificate was issued by CBSE after the appellant passed his Class 10
Examination, on 28.05.2016.
4. It was the case pleaded by the appellant before the learned Single
Judge that he joined National Defence Academy and after graduating
therefrom, he joined the Indian Military Academy in the year 2021-2022. It
was further pleaded that the appellant visited the Passport Sewa Kendra at
Pune on 21.07.2023 for obtaining a passport where the passport authorities
are said to have informed the appellant that an earlier passport stood issued in
his name in the year 2000 where his DOB was mentioned as 14.09.1999.
5. It was also asserted by the appellant that on coming to know the DOB
of the appellant was recorded as 14.09.1999 in the passport issued in his
name in the year 2000, the appellant visited the website of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ MCD ’) wherefrom, he
procured the birth certificate where his DOB is recorded as 14.09.1999. On
the basis of this birth certificate issued on 26.11.2023, where his DOB is
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 2 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
recorded to be 14.09.1999, the appellant filed the underlying writ petition
with the prayers which have already been mentioned above.
6. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned
judgment dated 16.04.2024 by placing reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigya Yadav vs. CBSE & Ors. 2021
SCC OnLine SC 415 wherein, it has inter alia been held that the Bye-Laws
which would be applicable would be the Bye-Laws in force on the date when
the certificate, in which the correction, has been sought was issued.
7. Learned Single Judge has further held that the certificate in which
correction was sought was issued on 28.05.2016 and therefore, the procedure
for change of DOB which was in force on the date of issuance of certificate,
i.e. 28.05.2016 can be found in the Notification dated 25.06.2015 issued by
the CBSE. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the said
Notification provides that any application for correction of the DOB, duly
forwarded by Head of the school in which candidate was studying, can be
made only within one year from the date of declaration of the result. The
period of one year for seeking correction of DOB has been upheld by learned
Single Judge by referring to what has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Jigya Yadav (supra).
8. Learned Single Judge quotesClause (iv) at Serial No. 69.2 of the table
contained in the CBSE Notification dated 25.06.2015 which reads as under:
"(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 one year of the date of
declaration of result. No correction whatsoever shall be made on
application submitted after the said period of one year."
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 3 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
9. Learned Single Judge has also noticed in the impugned order that
application seeking correction of the DOB was required to be forwarded by
the Head of the School and that the appellant never approached either the
school where he had studied or even the CBSE before filing the writ petition.
It has further been observed by learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment that in any case, any application to CBSE seeking correction of
DOB would be barred by time in terms of provisions contained in Clause (iv)
atSerial No. 69.2 of the Notification dated 25.06.2015 which has been
extracted hereinabove.
10. The learned Single Judge has noted the fact that the certificate wherein
change of DOB was being sought was issued on 28.05.2016 whereas the
appellant was seeking change of DOB as recorded in the Secondary School
Examination Certificate eight years after the certificate was issued.
11. It was argued before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the
appellant that one year limitation will not be applicable for seeking
correction. It was also pleaded on behalf of the appellant before the learned
Single Judge in the proceedings of the writ petition that one year limitation
for making correction in the DOB in the certificate will apply only to the
CBSE, however, such limitation will have no application, in case correction
is being sought by instituting the proceedings of a writ petition before this
Court.
12. However, the learned Single Judge repelled the aforesaid submissions
by observing that limitation stipulated by the CBSE in its Notification cannot
be bypassed even in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 4 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
India on the principle that law does not permit doing something indirectly
which cannot be done directly.
13. The prayer has thus, been refused by the learned Single Judge by
observing that no such direction to the CBSE to correct the DOB in the
appellant’s Secondary School Examination Certificate can be issued eight
years after the certificate was issued.
14. Challenging the impugned judgment, the proceedings of the instant
intra-court appeal have been instituted.
15. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment for the reason that Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (supra) has clearly held that fixation of time
period for seeking correction in DOB in the certificate(s) issued by CBSE, as
provided for by the Bye-Laws of the CBSE, has to be followed.
16. As already observed above, the procedure for change of DOB to be
followed will be the procedure which would be applicable on the date of
issuance of certificate depicting the DOB. The relevant Notification, thus, in
this case would be the Notification dated 25.06.2016 wherein, a clear
stipulation has been made that an application for correction in DOB shall be
entertained by the CBSE only within one year of the date of declaration of
the result and further that no correction whatever shall be made on
applications submitted after the period of one year. The said Notification also
provides that application for correction in the DOB has to be duly forwarded
by the Head of the School along with certain documents.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 5 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
17. In the instant case, admittedly, the appellant never moved any
application to the CBSE seeking correction in the DOB. He has also not
applied ever to the Head of the School, where he had studied, for forwarding
his prayer seeking correction in DOB in the certificate issued by CBSE.
Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single
Judge that prayer for correction in the DOB in the certificate issued by CBSE
would be barred by time in terms of the provisions contained in the
Notification of the CBSE dated 25.06.2016.
18. We also find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by the
learned Single Judge that proceedings of writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be pressed to serve a cause
which is otherwise barred by time.
19. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant did not
produce any other public document to support his cause except the two birth
certificates issued by MCD wherein, two different dates of birth, namely,
14.09.2000 and 14.09.1999 are recorded. We may further note that these two
birth certificates not only record different dates of birth of the appellant but
also record different places of birth. In one certificate the place of birth
recorded is Police Quarters, Naraina whereas in the other certificate, the
place of birth recorded is Jaipur Golden Hospital.
20. Based on such documents, in our opinion, no relief as was prayed by
the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition could have
been granted and accordingly, the writ petition has rightly been dismissed.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon certain judgments of
this Court where certain directions have been issued for correcting the DOB
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 6 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
of a student to the CBSE. We will discuss the judgments and orders relied
upon by learned counsel for the appellant one by one.
22. The first case where reliance has been placed by learned counsel for
the appellant is an order dated 11.02.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C) 6554/2023Smt. Nisha Ray vs. Central Board of Secondary
Education &Anr. If we analyse the facts of the said case, what we find is that
the correction in the DOB in the said matter was sought on the basis of
Aadhar Card and birth registration certificate issued under the Act, 1969.
Thus, since in Nisha Ray (supra) correction in DOB was sought on the basis
of certain public documents maintained by statutory authorities, a direction
was issued for correction of DOB, however, in the instant case, as already
observed above, no public document in support of the claim of the appellant,
except the two contradictory birth certificates, are available on record.
Therefore, reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant in Nisha Ray
(supra) is misconceived.
23. The second order relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant
is an order dated 27.03.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court
W.P.(C) 1592/2024 , Aiman Talal Faiz Chishti vs. Central Board of
Secondary Education . In this case the date of birth of the student was
mentioned as 21.12.2003 in the school records while he was admitted in
th th
Class 10 and accordingly, in his Class 10 marksheet also the DOB recorded
was 21.12.2003. The student in the said case had applied to the school which
had changed his DOB from 21.12.2003 to 11.12.2002 and accordingly, the
prayer for direction to change the DOB was sought on the basis of change in
the school records in Aiman Talal (supra) which is not the case here.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 7 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
Therefore, reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Aiman
Talal (supra) is also misconceived.
24. The next case relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is CBSE
v. Prema Evelyn D Cruz 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4243 . In the said case, there
was no dispute about the DOB recorded in the birth certificate issued under
the Act, 1969. The Division Bench of this Court in Prema Evelyn (supra)
has held that there is a presumption of correctness of records maintained by
the statutory authorities and therefore, the DOB recorded by Greater Chennai
Corporation under the provisions of the Act, 1969 has to be taken as correct.
It was thus, a case where there was no dispute about the DOB of the student
recorded inthe birth certificate issued under the Act, 1969.
25. In the instant case, however, we have already observed that there are
two birth certificates on record which mention two different dates of birth of
the appellant and accordingly, unless and until the dispute relating to DOB of
the appellant is resolved by a competent court of law or by any other
statutory mechanism available at a competent forum, giving a direction to the
CBSE in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, would not be
appropriate.
26. We, thus, do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the
writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
27. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
28. Having observed as above, we also note that, there is yet another
aspect of the matter. If we peruse both the birth certificates enclosed with the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 8 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
instant appeal which were also on record of the writ petition, what we find is
that both have been issued under the relevant provisions of Act, 1969 read
with relevant Rules known as Delhi Registration of Births and Deaths Rules,
1999 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ Rules, 1999 ’) which have been framed
under Section 30 of the Act, 1969.
29. The Act, 1969 contains a complete statutory scheme which inter
alia provides for appointment of Chief Registrar under Section 4 by the State
Government, appointment of District Registrar under Section 6 by the State
Government and appointment of Registrars under Section 7 of the said act. It
also provides the procedure for registration of births and deaths. Section 12
of the Act, 1969 provides that once registration of birth and death has been
completed, certificate extracted from the Registrar of births and deaths
relating to such birth or death shall be issued in such form and manner as
may be prescribed.
30. Section 15 provides for a mechanism for correction or cancellation of
entry in the register of births and deaths. Section 25A provides a remedy of
appealif any person is aggrieved by any action or order of Registrar or
District Registrar. Sections 15 and 25A of the Act, 1969, are extracted herein
below:
“15 . Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and
deaths.— If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of
a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in
form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may,
subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with
respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such
entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the
entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original
entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the
correction or cancellation.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 9 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
25A. Appeal. —(1) Any person aggrieved by any action or order of, —
(i) the Registrar, may prefer an appeal to the District Registrar; or
(ii) the District Registrar, may prefer an appeal to the Chief Registrar,
within a period of thirty days from the date of such action or receipt of
such order, as the case may be, in such form and manner as may be
prescribed.
(2) The District Registrar or the Chief Registrar, as the case may be, shall
decide the appeal referred to in sub-section (1) within a period of ninety
days from the date of preferring of such appeal.”
31. The two birth certificates in the instant case, the one which was issued
on 26.11.2023 and the other where birth of the appellant is said to be
registered on 07.12.2002 are thus, extracts of the birth and death register as
provided for under Section 12 of the Act, 1969.
32. Any correction in such certificate(s) may, thus, be sought by the
appellant by approaching the appropriate authority under Section 15 of the
Act, 1969 and if the appellant remains dissatisfied even after approaching the
authority concerned under Section 15 of the Act, 1969, he has a remedy of
appeal under Section 25A of the Act, 1969.
33. The claim of the appellant is that his correct DOB is 14.09.1999. In the
first certificate it is described as 14.09.2000 whereas, in the second certificate
it is described as 14.09.1999. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that instead
of rushing to the Court, correction in the birth certificate issued under the
Act, 1969 ought to have been sought by the appellant by approaching the
appropriate authority under Section 15 of the Act, 1969 and thereafter prayer
could have been made to CBSE to incorporate such correction in the
certificate issued by it.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 10 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
34. The Government of NCTD has framed certain rules under Section 30
of the Act, 1969 i.e., the Rules, 1999. Rule 11 of the said Rules, 1999 also
provide certain procedure for correction or cancellation of entry in the
register of births and deaths. Accordingly, in our opinion, the appellant ought
to approachthe authority concerned under Section 15 of the Act, 1969 read
with Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999 is extracted
herein below:
11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and
deaths-
(1) If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been
made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the
register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter
and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct
the error (by correcting or canceling the entry) as provided in section 15
and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has
been corrected to the State Government or the officer specified by it in this
behalf.
(2) In the case referred to in sub-rule (1) if the register is not in his
possession, the Registrar shall make a report to the State Government or
the officer specified by it in this behalf and call for the relevant register
and after enquiring into the matter, If he is satisfied that any such error
has been made, make the necessary correction.
(3) Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) shall be
countersigned by the State Government or the officer specified by it in this
behalf when the register is received from the Registrar.
(4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths
is erroneous in substance the Registrar may correct the entry in the
manner prescribed under section 15 upon production by that person a
declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true of the case made
by two credible persons having knowledge of the true facts of the case.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub- rule (4)
the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to
therein giving necessary details to the State Government or the officer
specified in this behalf.
(6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the
register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 11 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23
shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorized by
the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under section
25 and on hearing from him take necessary action in the matter.
(7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this
rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the
person who has given information under section 8 or section”
35. Further, another course can also be said to be available to the
appellant, who may approach a competent court of civil jurisdiction seeking a
declaration of his correct DOB by instituting proceedings of an appropriate
suit with appropriate prayers.
36. Accordingly, while dismissing the instant appeal we provide that it will
be open to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy, which may be available
to him under law, as discussed above, if he is so advised.
37. There will be no orders as to costs.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJAS KARIA)
JUDGE
JUNE04, 2026/MJ
Signature Not Verified
LPA 647/2024 Page 12 of 12
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23