High Court Dismisses Writ Petition for Change of Date of Birth — No Merit Found in Claim. The court upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.430, stating that the time limit for changing date of birth is rationally established to prevent tampering with records.

High Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition was filed by a petitioner aggrieved by the refusal of authorities to change his recorded date of birth from 14.06.1975 to 24.12.1976. The petitioner claimed he was born on 24.12.1976, and the hospital confirmed this date to the Registrar of Births and Deaths. However, during his admission to school in 1981, his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 14.06.1975, which was reflected in his SSC certificate upon completion of his education in 1991. The petitioner discovered the discrepancy in 2002 and sought to rectify it, but his request was denied on the grounds that it was time-barred under G.O.Ms.No.430, which restricts changes to within three years of course completion. The petitioner argued that the rule was arbitrary and that he should not be penalized for his father's error. The respondents contended that the time limit was rationally established to prevent tampering with records. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that the change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a right and that the time limit was justified. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no costs awarded.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Change Date of Birth - No Right to Change Date of Birth as a Matter of Right - Constitution of India, Article 16 - The court held that change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must align with applicable provisions. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any grounds for setting aside G.O.Ms.No.430, which prescribes a time limit for such changes (Paras 12-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the refusal to change the petitioner's date of birth was arbitrary and illegal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim and upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.430, which restricts applications for date of birth changes to within three years of course completion.

Law Points

  • Writ of Mandamus
  • principles of natural justice
  • Article 16 of the Constitution
  • Registration of Births and Deaths Act
  • time-barred applications
  • G.O.Ms.No.430
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (AP) (08) 17

Writ Petition No: 27476 of 2003

2026-08-07

LISA GILL, CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Ms. Yamini Nikitha, Mr. Rama Chandra Rao Gurram

C. V. Pavan Kumar

Education (E.E.I) Department and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the refusal to change the date of birth.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to change his date of birth.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed his recorded date of birth was incorrect.

Previous Decisions

Authorities denied the request based on G.O.Ms.No.430, stating the application was time-barred.

Issues

Whether the refusal to change the date of birth was arbitrary and illegal. Whether G.O.Ms.No.430 is valid and enforceable.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the time limit for changing the date of birth is arbitrary and should not apply in genuine cases. Respondents contended that the time limit is rationally established to prevent tampering with records.

Ratio Decidendi

Change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must comply with applicable provisions; time limits for such changes are justified to prevent record tampering.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 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.

Procedural History

Writ petition filed, admitted on 06.01.2004, reserved for orders on 23.07.2026, pronounced on 07.08.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Registration of Births and Deaths Act: Section 12, Section 17
  • Constitution of India: Article 16
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Converts Non-Bailable Warrant to Bailable Warrant in NI Act Case Due to Petitioner's Inability to Appear. Court holds that issuance of NBW at judgment stage was not warranted when accused had shown willingness to appear and had val...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Revision Against Conviction under Sections 332 and 353 IPC Owing to Lack of Specific Evidence of Assault on Public Servant. Conviction Quashed as No Specific Role Attributed in Assault on Assistant Controller of M...