Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1461 (ALL)

RITURAJ SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-07-05

A.P.SAHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination-2004 after having been registered in Class-IX in terms of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 7th July, 1992. The name of the petitioner was mentioned as Ritu Raj Singh son of Raksh Pal Singh. 3. The petitioner failed in the High School Examination-2004 and he again appeared in the High School Examination-2005. His result was declared but when the final mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the college, his date of birth was incorrectly shown as 7.7.1991 and his name was wrongly spelled as Ritu Pal Singh. The petitioner accordingly moved an application for correction before the respondent-Board. 4. The power to carry out such corrections is contained in Part-II-B-Chapter 3 of the Regulations narrating the powers of the Secretary of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad. Para 7 of the said regulation is extracted hereinunder: ^^7& lfpo] ifj"kn dh vksj ls lQy mEehnokjksa dks ifj"kn dh ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k&i= fofgr izi= esa nsxk vkSj ckn esa mldh izfof"V;ksa esa dksbZ 'kqf} djsxk] c’krsZ fd izek.k&i= esa fdlh ,slh xyr izfof"V] fdlh vfopkfjr fyfidh; Hkwy ;k yksi ds dkj.k ;k fdlh ,slh fyfidh; Hkwy ds dkj.k dh xbZ gks tks vlko/kkuh ls ifj"kn ds Lrj ds ;k ml laLFkk ds] tgka ls vfUre ckj f’k{kk izkIr dh gks] Lrj ij vfHkys[k esa gks xbZ gksA ;g 'kqf} lfpo }kjk mlh fLFkfr esa dh tk ldsxh tcfd vH;FkhZ us lEcfU/kr ijh{kk ds izek.k&i= dks ifj"kn }kjk fuxZeu djus dh frfFk ls nks o"kZ ds vUnj gh fyfidh; =qfV dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq, lEcfU/kr iz/kkukpk;Z@dsUnz O;oLFkkid dks =qfV ds la’kks/ku gsrq izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fn;k gks vkSj mldh izfr iathd`r Mkd ls lfpo] ifj"kn dks Hkh izsf"kr dh gksA^^ 5. The matter was being delayed, as a result whereof the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1105 of 2007 which was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of the Parishad to decide his application within a month. The judgment of this Court dated 9th January, 2007 also records the recommendation made by the District Inspector of Schools dated 14th July, 2006 on the basis of the record that was placed before him. 6. The judgment of this Court dated 9th January, 2007 also records the recommendation made by the District Inspector of Schools dated 14th July, 2006 on the basis of the record that was placed before him. 6. The petitioner, therefore, after completing all the formalities approached the respondent-Board whereafter the Secretary of the Board rejected the said application on the ground that the Principal of the institution vide his letter dated 23.7.2005 had earlier made a request for such alteration in the name and date of birth of the petitioner which was accordingly granted vide order dated 27.7.2005. The Secretary further indicated that since this change was brought about by the principal himself, therefore, no further alteration can be made on the request of the petitioner. 7. It is this order dated 16th of May 2007 which has been assailed before this Court on the ground that the Principal of the Institution had no authority to request for any change unless there was any thing contrary in the records, and even if it was to be done, the petitioner ought to have been put to notice. Learned Counsel contends that the said change, according to the regulation quoted hereinabove, can be brought out only on the asking of the candidate concerned and not on the request of the Principal of the Institution. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that it appears that the principal had made the request on the basis of the record available with him and in such circumstances the impugned order cannot be faulted with. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the regulations as also the impugned order, the change in any part of the certificate or mark-sheet can be brought about provided the same is not inconformity with records or on the asking of the candidate. In the instant case the Secretary has proceeded to alter the name of the petitioner and his date of birth without putting the petitioner to notice on the asking of the Principal of the Institution. The order does not indicate any discrepancy in the records for bringing about this change in the name of the petitioner and his date of birth. The order, therefore, is in violation of the principles of nature justice and not only this it is not in conformity with the regulations as quoted hereinabove. 10. The order does not indicate any discrepancy in the records for bringing about this change in the name of the petitioner and his date of birth. The order, therefore, is in violation of the principles of nature justice and not only this it is not in conformity with the regulations as quoted hereinabove. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.5.2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The Secretary of the Board shall in the light of the observations made herein above proceed to examine the records after calling for a report from the Principal of the institution and thereafter pass an appropriate order on the application of the petitioner within three months after giving him an opportunity to file objections, if any. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ——————