Patna High Court
Lakhendra GosaiversusThe Bihar School Examination Board
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The petition is without merit and is dismissed, upholding the Board’s ten‑year limitation policy for date‑of‑birth corrections.
Summary
The petitioner, Lakhendra Gosai, sought a writ to quash the Bihar School Examination Board’s order rejecting his application to correct his date of birth on his matriculation certificate from 20‑01‑1968 to 20‑01‑1963. He argued that the original entry was a clerical error made by his school and that supporting documents justified correction, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE. The Board contended that its policy bars any date‑of‑birth correction after ten years, and the petition was filed 37‑39 years after the certificate’s issuance, citing a prior coordinate bench decision that dismissed a similar claim. The Court examined the Board’s policy, the elapsed time, and the limited scope of the Supreme Court precedent, concluding that the petitioner’s request was time‑barred. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar School Examination Board’s ten‑year limitation policy for correcting date of birth on matriculation certificates applies to a petition filed after 37‑39 years.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE is applicable to compel correction in this case.
- Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the Board’s order should be entertained.
Subjects
- date of birth correction
- matriculation certificate
- limitation period
- educational board policy
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.287 of 2026
======================================================
Lakhendra Gosai Son of Kailash Gosai, Resident of Village-Sarmaspur, Post
Office-Kalwari, Police Station-Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar School Examination Board through its Chairman, Patna.
2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nadim Seraj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026
Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
quashing of the order, as contained in Memo No. DP-789 dated
16.03.2024, issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary,
Bihar School Examination Board (in short ‘Board’) whereby the
application of the petitioner dated 06.05.2023 for correction of
his date of birth in matriculation certificate as 20.01.1963, in
place of 20.01.1968, has been rejected.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner’s actual date of birth is 20.01.1968 and at the
time of admission of the petitioner in the High School, Shrisiya,
Patna High Court CWJC No.287 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
2/4
Kanti, Muzaffarpur, his parents had submitted correct date of
birth, as afore noted, but mistakenly it has been wrongly entered
in the admission register as 20.01.1963 and due to the wrong
entry made by the school, the same mistake has been occurred
in Matriculation certificate duly issued by the Board in the year
1986. The petitioner has approached time and again before the
Board, but the correction in the Matriculation certificate could
not be done and finally the representation of the petitioner for
necessary correction came to be rejected, being barred on
account of delay, which is under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also placed
reliance a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535
and referring thereto it is submitted that necessary correction in
the date of birth should not be guided by the policy decision of
the Board, rather if there are certain public documents to
support the necessary correction, in such circumstances, the
Board should take lenient view and make the necessary
correction in the matriculation certificate, but the same has not
been done.
5. Learned Advocate for the Board, Mr. Nadim
Seraj, submitted that admittedly the petitioner passed his
Patna High Court CWJC No.287 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
3/4
Matriculation examination in the year 1982 and the
Matriculation certificate was duly issued in favour of the
petitioner long back in the year 1986 and for the first time he
approached before the Secretary of the Board in the year 2023
by filing application for necessary correction after a delay of 37
years. It is submitted that the policy decision of the Board is
very clear on the point that correction in the date of birth shall
not be allowed beyond the period of ten years, hence the
application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by treating
it as time barred. It is further contended that identical matter has
come up for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this
Court in C.W.J.C. No.9889 of 2022 wherein the Court has
dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that the
candidate has approached this Court after 27 years of passing of
the matriculation examination.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the
learned Advocate for the respective parties and also took note of
the materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner had
passed the matriculation examination in the year 1982 and
certificate was also issued by the Board in the year 1986 itself.
Now the petitioner has approached this Court after 39 years. The
policy decision of the Board is very much clear that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.287 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
4/4
correction in the date of birth shall not be allowed beyond the
period of ten years. Moreover, in identical matter, the coordinate
Bench of this Court referred hereinabove has not interfered
taking note of the delay in approaching this Court for making
correction in the matriculation certificate, after such belated
stage.
7. So far the reliance of the petitioner over the
decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jigya Yadav (supra) is concerned, the same does not cover the
case of the petitioner, rather the Court emphasized that there is
no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any
pre-condition, except reasonable period of limitation and
keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain
its record under the extent regulation.
8. This Court finds the writ petition is devoid of any
merit. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.