MP HC Upholds Rejection Of Employee’s Bid To Correct Class XI Date Of Birth, Filed 38 Years After His Certificate Was Issued

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant was entitled to correction of his date of birth in the 1984 examination certificate despite seeking correction after an inordinate delay of more than 38 years.

The court held

The Court held that the Single Judge had rightly refused relief because the claim was raised after an inordinate delay and was barred by delay and laches.

It also directed

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the order dated 25 September 2025 in W.P. No. 3851/2023 was affirmed.

01Facts

The appellant’s Class XI examination certificate, issued in 1984, recorded his date of birth as 20 February 1967; he claimed that his correct date of birth was 20 February 1969, relying on his birth certificate and school records.

¶ 3

He made correction applications in 2010 and 2014 and a further application in 2022 following a Board press release.

¶ 3

The Board rejected the 2022 application on 11 May 2022.

¶ 3

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on the ground of delay exceeding 38 years.

¶ 1, 3

The appellant challenged that dismissal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant was entitled to correction of his date of birth in the 1984 examination certificate despite seeking correction after an inordinate delay of more than 38 years.

¶ 8, 11

ii.Whether the appellant’s earlier applications, supporting documents and reliance on the Board’s 2022 press release justified interference with the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition.

¶ 8–9

03Law Applied

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 provided the basis for the writ appeal.

¶ 1

The Court applied the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence to claims seeking alteration of date-of-birth entries in educational or service records.

Relying on Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, it reiterated that a claim for alteration of date of birth ordinarily should not be entertained after an employee has served for decades and raises the claim at the fag end of service or close to superannuation.

¶ 10

The Court also observed that documentary evidence of a different date of birth does not, by itself, overcome delay or displace the requirements governing correction of educational records.

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1

M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court treated the 2022 application as having been made more than 38 years after issuance of the certificate.

¶ 8

It held that the applications made in 2010 and 2014 did not establish a continuing legal entitlement to correction, and that the appellant had used the certificate containing the disputed entry for a considerable period.

¶ 8

Although the other records might support the genuineness of his claimed date of birth, they did not cure the delay or laches.

¶ 8

Nor did the 2022 press release or the asserted timely dispatch of the application establish a legal basis for reversing the Single Judge’s order; the Court noted that the press release provided for a change from an offline to an online application process.

¶ 9

Applying the principle in Bharat Coking Coal, the Court declined to entertain the belated claim.

¶ 10–11

05Holding

The Court held that the Single Judge had rightly refused relief because the claim was raised after an inordinate delay and was barred by delay and laches.

¶ 11

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the order dated 25 September 2025 in W.P. No. 3851/2023 was affirmed.

¶ 12

LawLens.Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF