01Facts
The petitioner sought correction of her date of birth in her school leaving certificate from 26 May 1972 to 26 October 1972.
¶ 1, 5–7 · pp. 1–4She relied on a birth certificate issued by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, which recorded 26 October 1972; the school leaving certificate issued on 31 May 1987 recorded 26 May 1972.
¶ 1, 5–7 · pp. 1–4The respondents opposed the claim, relying on the 39-year delay and contending that the petition had been filed through a power-of-attorney holder without authority to litigate.
¶ 1, 5–7 · pp. 1–4The petitioner invoked Article 226 after seeking correction from the respondents.
¶ 1, 5–7 · pp. 1–402Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of the date of birth in her school leaving certificate on the basis of the birth certificate, despite the delay in applying.
¶ 5–8 · pp. 2–5ii.2. Whether the petition was liable to be rejected because it was filed through a power-of-attorney holder.
¶ 6–7 · pp. 3–503Law Applied
The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which it may grant appropriate relief where a petitioner has no other efficacious remedy.
¶ 8 · p. 5It also relied on the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, observing that no time limit is prescribed under its provisions for correction of a date of birth.
¶ 7 · p. 4The Court treated the birth certificate issued by the competent municipal authority as the authentic record of the petitioner’s date of birth; it cited no precedent.
¶ 7 · p. 404Reasoning
The municipal birth certificate recorded the petitioner’s date of birth as 26 October 1972, while the school leaving certificate recorded 26 May 1972. The respondents produced no evidence contradicting the birth certificate or explaining the basis for the date entered in the school record.
¶ 7 · p. 4Although the Court acknowledged the 39-year delay, it held that delay did not defeat the claim in the absence of a statutory time limit for correction. It also rejected the power-of-attorney objection as overly technical in the circumstances of this proceeding.
¶ 7 · p. 4Finding no other efficacious remedy, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226.
¶ 8 · p. 505Holding
The Court allowed the petition and directed respondent No. 3 to issue a fresh school leaving certificate showing the petitioner’s date of birth as 26 October 1972 within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
¶ 9–10 · p. 6The Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
¶ 9–10 · p. 6Original Court PDF
KINNARIBEN RAKESH SHAHvsDISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
