Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 347 (ALL)

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State Of U. P.

1994-04-13

SUDHIR NARAIN

body1994
JUDGMENT Sudhir Narin, J. 1. THE petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commending the respondents to decide various representations alleged to have been made by him to the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad, respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') to correct the date of birth mentioned in the High School Examination Certificate. 2. THE petitioner appeared at the High School examination in the year 1957. He was issued High School Examination Certificate indicating his date of birth as 11th January, 1942. He further took higher education and passed M. Sc. (Ag.) and also obtained Ph. D. In the year 1964 he entered into service as Lecturer of Agriculture Botany in Shri Durgaji Degree College, Chandeshwar, District Azamgarh. The petitioner has come to this Court with the allegation that he came to know in the year 1965 that in the High School Certificate his date of birth was recorded as 11th January, 1942. In the year 1954 the petitioner had passed class Vth in which the petitioners date of birth was mentioned as 1-12-1944 and in the Junior High School Leaving Certificate also his date of birth was mentioned as 1-12 1944. The date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate was erroneous. He made representations dated 1-12-1965 and 31-3-1966 before the Board but those representations were not decided. The petitioner again made representations dated 26-8-1992, 12-11-1992, 29-3-1993 and 12-11-1993 but till today no decision has been taken by respondent no. 2 in the matter. 3. THE petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to decide the aforesaid representations. THE petitioner had passed High School examination in the year 1957 and thereafter he appeared at various other examinations. He did not, according to him, make any representation till the year 1965 when he came to know about the incorrect mention of date of birth in the High School Certificate. It is not necessary to decide the question as to when the petitioner had come to know about the date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate and when he made the first re-presentation before respondent no 2. THE petitioner has to establish that respondent no. 2 has a duty under the Statute to determine about the date of birth. 4. THE petitioner has to establish that respondent no. 2 has a duty under the Statute to determine about the date of birth. 4. WRIT of mandamus is issued when there is a duty cast upon an authority to adjudicate a controversy or a matter which is provided under the Statute. In case there is no such duty cast upon such an authority it cannot be directed by issue of a writ of Mandamus to decide such controversy. The Court cannot by issuing a mandamus confer jurisdiction upon an authority who does not possess it. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. G. C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493 , it was held that mandmus can be granted only when there is in the applicant the right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. 5. IN Praga Tools Corporation v C. V. Imanual, AIR 1969 SC 1306 , it was held that the condition precedent for issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming it a legal right to the performance of the legal duty by one against whom it is sought. An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directing to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him on them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. 6. THE Court has to ascertain whether respondent no. 2 is under a legal duty to determine the date of birth of the petitioner and to correct entries in the High School Certificate accordingly. THE petitioner has placed reliance upon Regulations 6 and 7 of Chapter III of Regulations (as amended in the year 1978) framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. They are reproduced as below :- "6. THE Secretary shall have the power to remove within reasonable time, which shall not ordinarily be more than six months from the date of publication of the results of the main examination of the Board, an error or omission or discrepancy discovered after passing of such results by the Results' Committee. 7. They are reproduced as below :- "6. THE Secretary shall have the power to remove within reasonable time, which shall not ordinarily be more than six months from the date of publication of the results of the main examination of the Board, an error or omission or discrepancy discovered after passing of such results by the Results' Committee. 7. THE Secretary shall on behalf of the Board, issue certificates in the prescribed form to successful candidates of having passed the Board's examinations and to make any corrections subsequently in the entries thereof provided that such incorrect entry has been made in the certificate duet to any inadvertent clerical error or omission or due to any clerical error which had crept in inadvertently in the records at the Board's level or at the level of the Institution last attended." A regular candidate when appears at the examination he is to submit examination form to the Board through the Principal of the institution. The examination forms are forwarded to the Board. It is the candidate who has to declare his date of birth in such examination form. The Board is not required to examine the correctness of the date of birth given in the examination form. It is taken as declaration of date of birth by the candidate. The date of birth may be correct or incorrect by mistake, omission or deliberate. After the candidate appears at the examination and his result is declared, he is issued an examination certificate and in such a certificate the date of birth of the candidate is mentioned. It only reflects the declaration of date of birth as given by the candidate. 7. THE Board is required to make correction in the certificate if there is any omission or error on the part of the Board. If, in the examination form a different date is given and In the High School Certificate another date is mentioned, the Board is bound to correct the same. Where the candidate states that he has given incorrect date of birth in the examination form and his date of birth should be different of what he had mentioned in the examination form, the Board is not required to consider this aspect. It is not adjudicating body to determine the date of birth of a candidate. Where the candidate states that he has given incorrect date of birth in the examination form and his date of birth should be different of what he had mentioned in the examination form, the Board is not required to consider this aspect. It is not adjudicating body to determine the date of birth of a candidate. It has no power to receive evidence and to determine the correct date of birth of a candidate. 8. IT is not the case of the petitioner that in the examination form a different date of birth was given and in the High School Certificate another date of birth has been mentioned. IT may be that incorrect date of birth might have been given by the petitioner in the examination form, but that will not confer jurisdiction upon the Board to enquire as to what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Rule 7 contemplates that error might have crept in inadvertently not only in the records at the Board's level but also at the level of the institution last attended by a candidate. The petitioner had passed Junior High School from Junior High School, Jahanabad, Azamgarh and in the School leaving certificate of the said institution his date of birth was mentioned as 1-12-1944, The examination form should have indicated the date of birth of the petitioner as indicated in the school leaving certificate. 9. THE petitioner has annexed the copy of school leaving certificate which is dated 25th November, 1965. This school leaving certificate appears to have been issued on 25th November, 1965. It is not the case of the petitioner that in the High School examination form the date of birth of the petitioner was indicated by the Principal or any authority of the institution. THE petitioner has annexed the copies of the alleged representations dated 1-12-1965 and 31-3-1966 as Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. In the application it has nowhere been stated flat it was on account of error or omission of the Board or the institution last attended by him. On the other hand in the representation dated 1-12-1965 he has stated that be is not aware to in what manner the mistake was crept in. 10. In the application it has nowhere been stated flat it was on account of error or omission of the Board or the institution last attended by him. On the other hand in the representation dated 1-12-1965 he has stated that be is not aware to in what manner the mistake was crept in. 10. THE representation in correct an error has to be made within a reasonable time, THE petitioner appeared at the High School Examination in the year 1957. THE representation is alleged to have bean made in the year 1965. THE correction of the date of birth can be made after verifying the date of birth as given by the candidate in the examination form. It will be difficult for the Board to find out the error or mistake unless the examination form is traceable in the office of the Board, If it is weeded out there remains nothing to examine by the Board on the basis of which it can come to the conclusion that the Board has; committed any mistake. The petitioner had entered into service in the year 1964. He must have also declares his date of birth at the time of entering into the service. The controversy which has been raised with regard to date of birth in effect relates to the length of service of the petitioner. The petitioner is relying upon Transfer Certificate certifying that (he petitioner had passed Class Vth and the date of birth is mentioned as list December, 1944 and the Junior High School Leaving Certificate which mentions the petitioner's date of birth as 1-12-1944. If the documents filed by the petitioner indicate different dates of birth it is for the authority before whom the dispute is raised to determine the same and if the authority is not satisfied that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is correct, the petitioner may seek appropriate remedy before a competent court of law who can adjudicate the dispute and determine the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence which may be produced before the court or such appropriate authority. 11. IN S. S. Sandhu v. Union of India, 1983 (i)SLJ 475, it was held that there in no rule to the effect that the date of birth recorded in the Military Service Book or record is the correct date. 11. IN S. S. Sandhu v. Union of India, 1983 (i)SLJ 475, it was held that there in no rule to the effect that the date of birth recorded in the Military Service Book or record is the correct date. When two documents contain two different dates of birth it is bound to leave to enquiry as to which is the correct date. 12. THE Board is not an adjudicating body to decide the correct date of birth. It cannot, therefore, be directed to decide the representation alleged to have been made by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.