AP High Court Upholds 3-Year Deadline For Date Of Birth Correction In School Certificates, Cites Risk Of Age Manipulation For Jobs

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the three-year limitation prescribed under a 1992 state government order for entertaining applications seeking correction or alteration of date of birth in Secondary School Leaving Certificate.

The Court held that the limitation has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and that a change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held that the three-year limit serves to prevent unverifiable claims for changes to dates of birth recorded in school certificates.

The Government introduced the restriction after receiving several requests to alter dates of birth years after the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) examination, amid concerns over record tampering through registration or re-registration and the potential for belated changes to confer an employment advantage.

The Court observed:

“It is pertinent to note that change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right and has to be in tune with applicable provisions. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any ground whatsoever, which calls for setting aside of G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992. Prescription of time limit, vide G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992, is based on a rational nexus with the object to be achieved.

We do not find any merit in argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that claim raised by petitioner after almost 11 years of completing his S.S.C., for a change in date of birth, should be entertained. Plea that he was only a student aged 27 at the time of filing writ petition and therefore, had nothing to gain as such is clearly devoid of merit. If such an argument were accepted and taken to its logical conclusion, a situation might arise where a candidate is able to take advantage of a particular age being recorded at the time of admission in elementary school and thereafter seek correction at a later stage to gain an advantage in employment.”

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the Government Order and consequential orders rejecting the petitioner's request to change his date of birth in school records and his SSC certificate from June 14, 1975, to December 24, 1976.

The petitioner claimed he was born on December 24, 1976, at a government hospital, which intimated his date of birth to the Registrar of Births and Deaths. However, his date of birth was recorded as June 14, 1975, upon admission to an elementary school in 1981 and was subsequently reflected in his SSC certificate, obtained on June 13, 1991.

Claiming to have discovered the error only in 2002, he obtained a birth certificate from the municipal authorities under Sections 12 and 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, certifying his date of birth as December 24, 1976.

In February 2002, the petitioner approached the District Educational Officer for correction of his date of birth in the SSC certificate. The Headmaster, when asked to report on the matter, stated that June 14, 1975, had been recorded as the petitioner's date of birth in the elementary school records in accordance with his father's admission application. He denied any error on the institution's part and attached a copy of the application.

Thereafter, the District Collector informed the Commissioner and Director of School Education that, under G.O.Ms.No.430 dated December 31, 1992, no application for correction or alteration of date of birth could be entertained beyond three years from completion of the course.

As the petitioner had applied for alteration more than 10 years after completing his SSC, his claim was considered time-barred.

The petitioner challenged the Government Order and consequential orders, arguing that the three-year limitation lacked a rational basis and genuine claims should not be rejected solely for delay. He contended that he could not be held responsible for his father's alleged error, particularly when an official birth certificate supported his claim. Relying on earlier Government Orders, he argued that the Director of School Education could correct dates of birth in completed school certificates based on unimpeachable evidence, even beyond three years.

The State submitted that G.O.Ms.No.430 aimed to prevent misuse of the correction process. It also questioned how the petitioner discovered the alleged error only in 2002. It further stated that students entering Class I had to be at least five years old by August 31 of the relevant academic year, while those entering Class II in 1982–83 had to be at least six by August 31, 1982. If the petitioner's claimed date of birth, December 24, 1976, were accepted, he would have been ineligible for Class II.

The Bench noted that the pleadings did not explain how the petitioner discovered the alleged error after so many years. When questioned, it was stated that an uncle had informed him of his correct date of birth, though the precise relationship could not be disclosed.

The Court found this explanation far-fetched, observing that it was difficult to believe that the petitioner's literate father would neither disclose this important fact nor seek correction after he completed his SSC in June 1991, leaving him unaware until the age of 27.

The Bench rejected the contention that the petitioner had nothing to gain from the alteration as he was still a student, observing that permitting such changes could enable candidates to alter dates of birth recorded at elementary school admission to gain an advantage in future employment.

Finding no ground to invalidate G.O.Ms.No.430 dated December 31, 1992, or interfere with the consequential orders, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Yamini Nikitha & Mr. J. Sudheer.

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, Government Pleader for School Education, Higher Education and Technical Education.