The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has clarified 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.
The Court also reiterated that the authorities cannot, on their own whims and fancies, doubt a certificate issued under a statutory provision. Medical opinion for determination of age is to be resorted to only in the absence of a matriculation certificate, school entry record, or a birth certificate issued by a Corporation, Municipal Authority, or Panchayat, in that order of priority.
Accordingly, noting that a number of petitions were being filed on account of rejection of candidature solely based on medical opinion, discarding documents issued by competent authorities under statutory provisions, the Court issued a direction to Respondent No. 2 to circulate amongst Navodaya Vidyalayas that medical opinion shall only be sought in the absence of: (i) Matriculation certificate (or equivalent); (ii) Documents evidencing date of birth entered in the first school attended, duly attested by the Principal; and (iii) Birth certificate issued by a Corporation, Municipal Authority, or Panchayat.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the ossification test, upon which the CMO’s report is based, cannot be said to be accurate and has been considered to carry an accuracy of ± 2 years. Reference was made to the decisions of Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir [(1982) 2 SCC 538], and Vishnu Alias Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 1 SCC 283], where it was held that the date of birth registered in the municipal corporation, coupled with the statement of parents, is a determining factor, and that the ossification test-based opinion of a medical officer, being of an advisory character, cannot take precedence over the date of birth recorded in an unimpeachable document.
Reference was also made to the decision in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 263], to reiterate that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the matriculation certificate is the highest-rated option under Rule 12(3); and only in the absence of such a certificate can other records be relied upon, including the date of birth entered in the first school attended, followed by a birth certificate issued by a Corporation, Municipal Authority, or Panchayat.
The Bench noted that the birth certificate was 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 therefore carried a presumption of validity under law, which had not been dislodged by the respondents at any point, nor had the certificate been cancelled.
The Bench also noted that the CMO’s ossification test certificate itself records that the opinion of age is based on general appearance, and the respondents admitted in Para-29 of their counter affidavit dated Nov 21, 2025 that there could be a variance of six months to one year in the medical verification of the age of a candidate. Thus, the Bench found that the denial of admission by Respondent No. 4 was not in consonance with the mandate of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and accordingly directed Respondent No. 4 to admit the petitioner in Class-VI for the academic session 2026-27, noting that the petitioner was not studying anywhere.
Briefly, the petitioner, Vimal Singh, filed a petition seeking a mandamus directing Respondent No. 4 to admit him in Class-VI in PM Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Duredi, Banda, and to keep one seat vacant for him in the said institution. The petitioner’s birth certificate, issued by Gram Panchayat, Bantharee, Banda, recorded his date of birth as July 01, 2013. Under Clause 4.2 of the prospectus for admission to Class-VI in PM Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, a candidate must not be born before May 01, 2013 or after July 30, 2015, thereby making the petitioner eligible for admission.
The respondents relied upon the counter affidavit, wherein the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Banda reported the petitioner’s age to be approximately 16 years, thereby contending that the petitioner was ineligible for admission.
Appearances:
Advocate Chandra Prakash Awasthi, for the Petitioner
A.S.G.I., Anant Kumar Tiwari and C.S.C., Gambhir Tripathi, for the Respondent
