Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 154 (GAU)

Mohit Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam

2004-03-03

RANJAN GOGOI

body2004
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned counsel appearing for the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, 2. The writ petitioner joined service in the Gunaviram Baruah L. P. School, Nagaon as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1982. At the time of his entry into service, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1.1.1949. The aforesaid date of birth of the petitioner was recorded on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. Contending that the date of his birth had been wrongly recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and further asserting that the correct date of birth, of the petitioner is 13.10.1955, the petitioner claims that he had filed an application before the Board on 1.3.1974 for necessary correction of the date of birth. According to the petitioner, the said application dated 1.3.1974 not having been responded to by the Board, another application to the same effect was filed by him on 4.4.1983. Both the applications dated 1.3.1974 and 4.4.1983 have been enclosed to the writ petition. Thereafter, in the year 1999, the Principal of the School, where the petitioner had studied and from which he had passed the Matriculation Examination, wrote to the Secretary of the Board informing the Secretary that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 13.10.1955 and not 1.11.1949. On the body of the said communication issued by the Principal, the Inspector of Schools had made an endorsement confirming that the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.10.1955 and had requested the Secretary of the Board to make necessary corrections. As the Board had not responded to any of the aforesaid communications, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board in the present proceeding. However, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel appearing for the Board, on instructions received, has submitted that at no point of time, the writ petitioner had approached the Board for correction of his date of birth. The applications dated 1.3.1974 and 4.4.1983 enclosed to the writ petition were not submitted to the Board. However, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel appearing for the Board, on instructions received, has submitted that at no point of time, the writ petitioner had approached the Board for correction of his date of birth. The applications dated 1.3.1974 and 4.4.1983 enclosed to the writ petition were not submitted to the Board. The request made in the year 1999 is by the Principal and not by the writ petitioner and in any case, the said request is highly belated one which could not have been entertained under the Regulations framed by the Board, i.e., Regulations for Conduct of Examinations by the Board. Relying on Regulation 8 of the aforesaid Regulations, it has been pointed out by Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the Board, that an application for correction of the date of birth of a candidate who had appeared in an examination conducted by the Board must be forwarded by the head of the institution and, thereafter, the Inspector of Schools, has to verify the school records and submit a report to the Board. It is further submitted by Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the Board, that the correction, as may be admissible, can be made by the Board provided an application is submitted within three years from the date of commencement of the concerned examination. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Md. Sarifuz Zaman, reported in 2003 (10) SCC 898 Learned counsel for the Board has submitted that the Apex Court while interpreting Regulation 8 of the aforesaid Regulations, has held that there would be no power in the Board to make any correction in the date of birth of a candidate unless an application for such correction is made within the time stipulated, i.e., 3 years from the date of commencement of the concerned examination. As according to the learned counsel for the Board, the Board is yet to receive any application from the petitioner, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Md. Sarifuz Zaman (supra), there would be no power and jurisdiction left in the Board to make any correction in the date of birth of the petitioner, at this belated stage. 4. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have been duly considered. Sarifuz Zaman (supra), there would be no power and jurisdiction left in the Board to make any correction in the date of birth of the petitioner, at this belated stage. 4. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have been duly considered. While according to the writ petitioner, an application for correction of his date of birth was made on 1.3.1974 and the examination was held in the year 1971, the stand of the Board as placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the Board, is that no such application was received. However, it must be noticed that the stand of the Board to the above effect has not been taken by means of any affidavit filed. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam (supra), if the application of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth was received by the Board within the time stipulated under Regulation 8 of the Regulations, the Board will be under a legal duty and obligation to make the necessary correction in the date of birth of the petitioner, of the facts of the case would so warrant, However, if no such application was received by the Board within the stipulated time, there would be no power left with the Board to make any such correction. As there appears to be a dispute on the core fact, i.e., whether any application was submitted by the petitioner and received by the Board within the stipulated time, this writ petition will now stand closed with a direction to the Board to verify from the relevant records, if the petitioner had submitted an application on 1.3.1974 and if any such application is found on record, to pass necessary orders on the claim for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. As several decades have in the meantime rolled by for an effective determination of the aforesaid question, the Board may issue notice to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to place before the Board all such materials which may have a relevant bearing with regard to the submission of the requisite application by the petitioner, as claimed. As several decades have in the meantime rolled by for an effective determination of the aforesaid question, the Board may issue notice to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to place before the Board all such materials which may have a relevant bearing with regard to the submission of the requisite application by the petitioner, as claimed. If on scrutiny of the necessary materials in terms of the present directions, the Board comes to the conclusion that, the petitioner had not submitted any application for correction of the date of birth within the stipulated time, naturally, the Board will be under no obligation to take any steps to make any correction in the date of birth of the petitioner. 5. The writ petition shall stand closed in terms of the above directions.