Bihar HC Rejects Former Teacher’s Post-FIR Bid to Change Matric Birth Date, as 1986 Board Registers Show 1971

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of her date of birth in the matriculation certificate despite the long delay and the Board’s records showing a different date.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had not established entitlement to correction and that her claim was barred by the substantial delay and contradicted by the Board’s records.

It also directed

It found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

01Facts

The petitioner sought correction of her date of birth in her 1986 matriculation certificate from 5 January 1971 to 5 January 1970, relying on school and other records.

¶ 2–3

The Board opposed the request, stating that its original and duplicate tabulation registers recorded 5 January 1971.

¶ 2–3

The petitioner first sought correction after an FIR alleging that her educational certificate was forged led to cancellation of her appointment.

¶ 11–13

The High Court found that she had approached it after a substantial delay and that the Board’s records contradicted her claim.

¶ 18

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of her date of birth in the matriculation certificate despite the long delay and the Board’s records showing a different date.

¶ 12–13, 18

ii.Whether the decision in Tajuddin Khan v. State of Bihar displaced the Board’s time limit or otherwise supported the petitioner’s claim on these facts.

¶ 5–8, 19

03Law Applied

Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules, 1950, and the Board’s policies dated 27 September 2006 and 18 August 2009 were considered in relation to time limits for correction of date-of-birth records.

¶ 5–10

The petitioner relied on Tajuddin Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2014 (3) PLJR 746, concerning the possibility of correction in appropriate cases even after the period under Rule 96.

¶ 5–8

The Court applied the principles in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664, and LIC v. R. Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781, that delayed claims for correction—particularly at the fag end of service—require caution and cannot be claimed as of right.

¶ 15–17

It also applied Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. v. T.P. Nataraja, (2021) 12 SCC 27, which states that such applications must comply with applicable rules, may be rejected for delay and laches, and are not made out merely by adducing evidence.

¶ 15–17

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner had made no timely effort to correct the date of birth and approached the Court only after the FIR and cancellation of her appointment.

¶ 12–13

More importantly, the Board’s original and duplicate tabulation registers, prepared in 1986, recorded her date of birth as 5 January 1971; the Court therefore found no cogent, reliable, or irrefutable proof supporting the requested correction.

¶ 12–13, 18

It distinguished Tajuddin Khan, where the Board’s own records supported the claim, whereas the records here contradicted it.

¶ 18–19

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner had not established entitlement to correction and that her claim was barred by the substantial delay and contradicted by the Board’s records.

¶ 18–20

It found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

¶ 18–20

LawLens.Patna High Court

Original Court PDF