Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1914 (PAT)

Dhananjay Prasad v. Bihar School Exam. Board

2007-12-18

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the communication dated 16.10.2004 (Annexure-9) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth has been rejected. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner appeared in the Annual Secondary School Examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board in the year 1990. He disclosed his date of birth as 29.04.1977. He passed the said examination in the first division and a provisional certificate dated 27.7.1990 (Annexure-4) was issued showing his date of birth to be 29.04.1977. However to the surprise of the petitioner when certificate dated 25.9.2000 was issued it showed his date of birth as 1.03.1976. The petitioner represented for correction of his date of birth to 29.4.1977. The Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to the Board) made correspondences with the school from which he had appeared in examination. It certified that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 29.4.1977. 3. However, by the impugned order prayer of the petitioner has been rejected. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board the assertion of the petitioner that his date of birth has been entered as 29.4.1977 has not been denied but it has been stated that in view of the decision of the Board not to permit a candidate below 14 years of age on 1st March of the year in which examination is held his date of birth has been altered to 1.3.1976 so as to make eligible for appearance in the said examination. 5. When the matter was listed before a Single Judge, he, by order dated 20.12.2006 has referred the matter to Division Bench and that is how this matter has been listed before us. 6. Mr. N.K.P. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that the petitioner had appeared in the examination claiming his date of birth to 29.4.1977 and the provisional certificate issued to him shows the same date of birth, hence the Board on its own was not competent to alter his date of birth to 1.3.1976. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on an un-reported judgment of this Court dated 23.4.1997 passed in Md. Kalam and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Others, C.W.J.C. No. 7302 of 1996. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on an un-reported judgment of this Court dated 23.4.1997 passed in Md. Kalam and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Others, C.W.J.C. No. 7302 of 1996. Relevant portion of judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: "A counter affidavit has been filed in which the said fact regarding the dates of birth of the petitioners being 16.10.1976, 2.10.1976 and 27.07.1976 has not been controverted but it has been stated that in view of the direction issued by the Secretary of the Board dated 23.08.1989, no person beiow the age of 14 years was to be allowed to appear in the Matriculation Examination. As the petitioners were less than 14 years of age and have already appeared and passed the Matricuiation Examination as such in view of the said direction, their date of birth has been advanced so that they should be at least 14 years of age on the date of appearing in the Matriculation Examination. To my mind, the said contention of the Board is fit to be rejected. If, there was any decision of the Board not to permit a candidate to appear in the Matriculation Examination unless he attained 14 years of age, it was for them to be more vigilant while issuing the Admit Card allowing the said person to deposit his fee and while permitting him to sit in the said examination. As the authorities of the Board were not vigilant and the petitioners had been permitted to appear in the said examination and have passed the same and admittedly their date of birth 16.10.1976, 2.10.1976 & 27.07.1977 the same cannot be changed only to bring the petitioners age in the category of the eligible candidate, who should have been at least 14 years of age on the date of appearing in the said examination, for the laches on the part of the Respondent Board, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer." 7. Mr. Shukla, appearing on behalf of the Board, however, contends that the matter stands concluded by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.1.2005 passed in L.P.A. No. 21 of 2005 (The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board vs. Ismat Zahra and Others). Mr. Shukla, appearing on behalf of the Board, however, contends that the matter stands concluded by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.1.2005 passed in L.P.A. No. 21 of 2005 (The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board vs. Ismat Zahra and Others). In the said case it has been observed as follows: "Admitted fact is that the writ peti-tione respondent has got employment in the department of B.S.N.L. The only controversy raised by the Department where she has been employed is that there is conflicting date of birth in the provisional certificate and the original , certificates. In our view, this controversy should come to an end as she has been settled in her life. In that view of the matter, now the date of birth of the writ petitioner-respondent would be what the Board has decided i.e. 1st March, 1976 and the B.S.N.L will also consider this date of birth as real date of birth of the writ petitioner-respondent and the date of birth given in the provisional certificate or in any other document will not be given effect to and if the writ petitioner-respondent approaches the Board for correction of her date of birth in the provisional cer-tificate the Board will modify the same within one month from the date of pro-duction of the said certificate." 8. The Board has taken a policy decision not to permit a student to appear in the Secondary School Examination un-less he had attained the age of 14 years on 1st March of the year in which the examination is to be held. Such a policy decision can be taken by the Board. How-ever, in the present case undisputedly the petitioner was below 14 years of age on 1.03.1990 when he appeared in the Secondary School Examination of the year 1990. Thus, he was not eligible for ap-pearing in the Secondary School Exami-nation and the Board could have prohib-ited him from appearing in the examina-tion. However, in our opinion, when the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination, his date of birth can not be changed at the instance of the Board, To that extent the decision of the Board to change his date of birth is absolutely ille gal. 9. To put record straight, Mr. However, in our opinion, when the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination, his date of birth can not be changed at the instance of the Board, To that extent the decision of the Board to change his date of birth is absolutely ille gal. 9. To put record straight, Mr. Shukla has prayed for disposal of the writ appli cation on the ground that this Court should not direct for correction of the date of birth. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam V/s. Md. Sarifuz Zaman and Others, 2003 12 SCC 408 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph 10 of the judgment which reads as follows: "Nobody can claim a right to have an entry corrected in a certificate solemnly issued by an educational institution, that too the one enjoying the status of a statutory Board under the Act. The right of the applicant to have an error or mistake corrected is accompanied by a duty or obligation on the part of the Board to correct its records and the certificate issued by it. Not only it is a corresponding duty, or obligation, it has also to be perceived as a power exercisable by the Board to correct an entry appearing in the certificate issued by it. People, institutions and government departments, etc. all attach a very high degree of reliability, near finality, to the entries made in the certificates issued by the Board. The frequent ex-ercise of power to correct, entries in certificates and that too without any limitation on exercise of such power would render the power itself arbitrary and may result in eroding the credibility of certificates issued by the Board. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the contention that the applicants seeking correction of entries in such certificates have any such right or vested right." 10. In our opinion, the decision has no bearing at all in facts of the present case. It is not the petitioner who is seeking change in the date of birth. In fact he had disclosed his date of birth as 29.4.1977 which finds mention in the provisional certificate granted to him. In our opinion, the decision has no bearing at all in facts of the present case. It is not the petitioner who is seeking change in the date of birth. In fact he had disclosed his date of birth as 29.4.1977 which finds mention in the provisional certificate granted to him. It is the Board who had made correction on the basis of its decision that a person below 14 years of age shall not be eligible for appearing in the examination. 11. In case the respondents believe that the person not eligible has been appeared in the examination, it shall be free to take decision in accordance with law. 12. In the result this application is allowed. Respondent-Board is directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 29.4.1977 in the certificate granted to him. However, this will not preclude the Board to take such action as permissible in law. There shall be no order as to costs.