VIMAL SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - C No. - 14707 of 2025

Vimal Singh
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

Union Of India And 4 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Chandra Prakash Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : A.S.G.I., Anant Kumar Tiwari, C.S.C.,
                                     Gambhir Tripathi

                                                                                AFR
Court No. - 38
                   HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Awasthi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 1, 2 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents no. 3 and 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"(A). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent No.4 to admitting the petitioner in Class-VIth in PM Shri School Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya Duredi, Banda.

(B) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent No.4 to keep vacant one seat in class-Vi for the petitioner in the said
institution.

(C). Issue any suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the birth
certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bantharee, Banda specifically
records the date of birth of the petitioner to be 01.07.2013. He has also
relied on the prospectus for admission to Class-VI in PM Shri School
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, wherein under the eligibility clause, more
particularly in Clause 4.2, it has been mentioned that a candidate seeking
admission must not be born before 01.05.2013 or after 30.07.2015. In
                                                       WRIC No. 14707 of 2025
                               2


view of the aforesaid, he submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is
01.07.2013 and the birth certificate issued by the Government has a
presumption of its validity and unless the same is cancelled or the
presumption is dislodged, the date of birth of the petitioner could not have
been doubted.

4. Per contra, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, relying upon Para-29
of the counter affidavit, has submitted that the Chief Medical Officer,
Banda, through his letter dated 16.04.2025 though indicated that the age
could be in variance of six months to one year, in the medical verification
of the age of a candidate, he has given a report that the petitioner's age is
about 16 year (wrongly transcribed as 15 year in Para-29). In view of the
aforesaid, the petitioner could not have been given the admission.

5. On a pointed query to the learned counsel for the respondent, as to
whether the birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bantharee, as
annexed with the affidavit filed along with aforesaid writ petition
(Annexure-2), has been controverted, he submits on the basis of the
counter affidavit that the same has not been contradicted.

6. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is that once a
document which has been issued under a statutory provision and the same
being admitted, whether under the scheme which is beneficial in nature, is
it open to the authorities to doubt the age of a student and seek for a
medical report from the Chief Medical Officer.

7. It is trite law that the ossification test, based on which the CMO
submits his report, cannot be said to be accurate and it has been
considered to be having an accuracy of ± 2 years (Ref: Jaya Mala Vs.
Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Others;
reported in (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Vishnu Alias Undrya Vs. State of
Maharashtra; reported in (2006) 1 SCC 283).

8. In the case of Vishnu Alias Undrya (supra), while the date of birth was
being determined on the basis of the available evidences, the Apex Court
had opined that the date of birth registered in the municipal corporation
coupled with the statement of the parents is a determining factor. The
correct date of birth, where unimpeachable document, is corroborated by
                                                       WRIC No. 14707 of 2025
                               3


even an oral statement, the ossification test based opinion of medical
officer, which is really of an advisory character cannot take precedence
over the date of birth recorded in the municipal corporation. Even as per
the doctor's opinion in the ossification test for determination of age, the
age varies.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana,
reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, also examined the issued and held that in
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the
matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of a child concerned is a highest
rated option, in the scheme of Rule, 12(3); and in case said certificate is
available, no other evidence can be relied upon, and only in absence of
such a certificate other records of date of birth can be looked into i.e. the
date of birth entered into the school first attended by the child; and
thereafter in absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a
birth certificate issued by a Corporation or a municipal authority or a
Panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available then no other
material whatsoever, is to be taken into consideration, for determining the
age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively
determine the age of the child; and only in absence of any of the aforesaid
document, the determination of age of a child concerned, can be on the
basis of "medical opinion".

10. It is noteworthy that the birth certificate is issued under Section 12/17
of the Registration of Births and Deaths, Act, 1969 read with Rule 8(3) of
the Uttar Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2002; and as
such it has the presumption of its validity under law; and at no point of
time the said presumption has been dislodged by the respondent and the
certificate admittedly has not been cancelled.

11. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the opinion that unless
and until, a document which has been issued under a statutory provision,
is either cancelled or an element of forgery is proved, it shall have a
binding effect on the authorities; and it is not within the domain of the
authorities concerned, to doubt the certificate issued under a statutory
provision, on its own whims and fancies.
                                                       WRIC No. 14707 of 2025
                               4


12. The said observation is also in view of the fact that the ossification
test which the CMO conducts, as per the certificate itself, records that the
opinion of age is based on general appearance and the respondents also
admits in their counter affidavit that, there could be a variance of six
month to one year in the medical verification of the age of a candidate,
i.e. in Paragraph No. 29 of the counter affidavit dated 21.11.2025.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the denial by the respondent no.4 to admit
the petitioner in Class-VI in PM Shri School Javahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Duredi, Banda is not in consonance with the mandate of Right
to Education Act, 2009; and accordingly the respondent no.4 is directed to
admit the student (petitioner herein) in Class-VI, for the academic session
2026-27, as it is the case of the petitioner that he is not studying
anywhere, without any further delay.

14. This Court finds that a number of writ petitions are being filed, on
account of the rejection of the candidature solely based on a medical
opinion, discarding the documents which have been issued by the
competent authorities under a statutory provision; therefore, I deem it
appropriate that a direction may be issued to Respondent No.2- to
circulate amongst all the schools which are governed by them i.e.
"Navodaya Vidyalaya", to only seek for a medical opinion, in case the
following documents are not available:

(i) Matriculation certificate (or equivalent) issued by the competent
authorities/Board.
(ii) Documents evidencing date of birth entered into the school first
attended by the child, duly attested by the Principal, of the said school.
(iii) Birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or
a Panchayat.

15. However, the aforesaid documents are subject to their verification, if
any doubt arises regarding their genuineness, for which the concerned
School authorities, may send the said documents within two weeks of
application, to their issuing authorities/Board, who shall be required to
respond within a maximum period of one month, from the date of receipt
of such request, from the School, where the child had applied for
                                                                                         WRIC No. 14707 of 2025
                                                                  5


                                    admission.

                                    16. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands
                                    disposed of.

                                    17. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to
                                    Respondent No.2, for necessary compliance.



                                                                                      (Siddharth Nandan,J.)
                                    April 10, 2026
                                    Sumit K.




Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad