Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 685 (PAT)

Surendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-08-02

NAGENDRA RAI, P.N.YADAV

body2001
Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2820 of 2001 dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant in which prayer was made for correction of date of his birth and altering the same from 2.1.1960 to 22.12.1964 in his matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board {hereinafter referred to as the Board) as well as in the relevant registers maintained by the Board. 2. The facts of the case as set up by the appellant are that he passed matriculation examination in the year 1977. After about ten years in the year 1987 he detected that the date of his birth was wrongly mentioned in his matriculation certificate as 2.1.1960 instead of 22.12.1964 which was the correct date of his birth. He applied for correction of his date of birth in his matriculation certificate before the Board, however, it is nowhere mentioned as to when such application was made by the appellant. The respondent Board asked the appellant to submit his original matriculation certificate and he did submit the same and thereafter he was issued a duplicate certificate mentioning therein his correct date of birth as 22.12.1964. The duplicate certificate appears to have been issued sometime in the year 1987. The appellant passed B.Sc. examination from B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University in the year 1981 and subsequently he was selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. His matriculation certificate was sent to the Board for verification and in the process it transpired that there was discrepancy regarding his date of birth as mentioned in the original tabulation register kept under lock and key and the duplicate tabulation register which remained open for day to day use. Thereafter the appellant submitted an application for making necessary correction in the date of his birth so as to bring uniformity in the original tabulation register and the duplicate tabulation register and other relevant registers, if any, maintained by the Board. 3. The respondent Board resisted the appellants claim. In its counter affidavit it stated that in the original tabulation register the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 2.1.1960. 3. The respondent Board resisted the appellants claim. In its counter affidavit it stated that in the original tabulation register the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 2.1.1960. The respondent asserted that the duplicate matriculation certificate with date of his birth recorded as 22.12.1964 appeared to have been surreptitiously and fraudulently procured by the appellant after lapse of a long span of ten years from the date of issuance of the original matriculation certificate by bringing certain functionaries of the Board in his collusion and conspiracy. It is also recited in the counter affidavit that fraud and forgery in issuance of duplicate matriculation certificate is writ large also from the fact that in course of verification it was ascertained that the relevant page of tabulation register had been torn or removed and in the school admission register called from the school from where the appellant appeared at the examination his date of birth was found to have been changed by making interpolation in a different ink. Under the circumstances, the respondent Board rejected the appellants prayer for changing his date of birth from 2.1.1960 to 22.12.1964. 4. The admitted position is that the appellant passed matriculation examination in the year 1977 and he applied for correction of his date of birth in the matriculation certificate issued by the respondent Board by changing the same from 2.1.1960 to 22.12.1964 after about ten years in the year 1987. 4. The admitted position is that the appellant passed matriculation examination in the year 1977 and he applied for correction of his date of birth in the matriculation certificate issued by the respondent Board by changing the same from 2.1.1960 to 22.12.1964 after about ten years in the year 1987. In the face of the assertion of the respondent Board in its counter affidavit that the appellants correct date of birth as recorded in the original tabulation register is 2.1.1960 and he obtained duplicate matriculation certificate and got his date of birth recorded as 22.12.1964 thereon by bringing certain officials of the Board in his collusion and conspiracy and that fact also stands testified to by interpolation in the school admission register, the contention put forwward on behalf of the appellant that the respondent Board had already corrected the date of his birth by changing the same from 2.1.1960 to 22.12.1964 with the approval of the Chairman of the Board and it can no longer disown the entry regarding the date of birth and moreover the appellants prayer was only for making verification report and not for correction of date of birth and the letter dated 31.1.1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ application) issued by the Board intimating the Headmaster of the school regarding rejecting the appellants prayer for correction of his date of birth was un-warranted, seems to be devoid of merit and force and the same cannot be accepted. Inordinate delay on the part of the appellant to take steps for correction of date of his birth also reveals that the appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands. 5. Taking the facts and circumstances available on records and the submissions put forward on behalf of the appellant into account, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant and there is no ground or scope for making interference with the impugned order. 6. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dimissed.