Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 910 (ALL)

ASHWANI KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-03-23

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is a student. He has made this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth in the Marks-Sheet and Certificate of High School. 2. The essential facts are that the petitioner did his High School in the year 2009 from Bharat Scout & Guide Inter College, Allahabad. Said institution is recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (for short, “the Board”). In the examination of High School conducted by the Board the petitioner was declared successful. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the marks-sheet and certificate of High School his date of birth is wrongly mentioned as 09th July, 1994, whereas his correct date of birth is 07th April, 1994. For correction of his date of birth, the petitioner moved an application on 06th January, 2014 on the prescribed format duly forwarded by the Principal, Bharat Scout & Guide Inter College, Allahabad, from where the petitioner passed his High School examination in the year 2009. It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad also recommended for correction of date of birth of the petitioner as 07th April, 1994 in place of 09th July, 1994. The petitioner has collectively brought on record the recommendations made by the Principal of the college and the District Inspector of Schools as annexure-3 to the writ petition. 3. It is stated that in the School Leaving Certificate, which the petitioner has filed before the Board, his date of birth is mentioned as 07th April, 1994. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad to the petitioner of Standard-V, which he passed on 20th May, 2004. In the said School Leaving Certificate his date of birth is mentioned as 07th April, 1994. In the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Bharat Scout & Guide Inter College, Allahabad also, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 07th April, 1994. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has received the instruction in the matter, which he has produced before the Court. A copy of the instruction is taken on the record. 5. In the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Bharat Scout & Guide Inter College, Allahabad also, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 07th April, 1994. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has received the instruction in the matter, which he has produced before the Court. A copy of the instruction is taken on the record. 5. On the instruction learned Standing Counsel submits that the State Government exercising its power under Section 16(2) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, “the Act”) has amended the Regulation 7 of Chapter-III of Part II-B of the Regulations framed under the Act, wherein it is provided that if there is a clerical mistake in the certificate issued by the Board, it can be corrected by the Board if the candidate submits an application within three years of passing of the examination through the concerned Principal and a copy of the said application is also sent under the registered cover to the Board. It is submitted that in the present case the petitioner has filed the application after the prescribed period of three years, therefore, the Board cannot correct the date of birth of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid amended Regulation. 6. I have heard Sri Bholeshwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner as after passing Standard-VIII, he had taken admission in Bharat Scout & Guide Inter College, Allahabad, where he had submitted his School Leaving Certificate of Standard-VIII. The petitioner has also submitted his examination form, wherein he has mentioned his date of birth correctly. However, it appears that there is mistake in the record of the Board and on the basis of the said wrong record, petitioner’s date of birth has wrongly been mentioned in the certificate. He lastly urged that the petitioner had followed the procedure and on the format prescribed by the Board he had submitted his application to the Principal of the concerned college, who has forwarded it to the District Inspector of Schools, who, in his turn, has also made countersignature on the said format. Thus, there is no delay in submitting the application. 8. Thus, there is no delay in submitting the application. 8. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Tiwari submits that Regulation 7, as referred above, has been framed for the purpose of correction in the certificates and the procedure has been laid down in the amended Regulation, which requires that the application should be forwarded by the Principal of the concerned College and a copy of the application should be sent under the registered cover directly to the Board within three years. In the instant case, the petitioner has made the application after three years. Therefore, the Board is justified in rejecting his application. 9. I have considered the respective submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The petitioner has passed his High School examination in the year 2009. He has made the application in the year 2014 on the prescribed format, which he has brought on record as annexure-3 to the writ petition. Said application has been forwarded by the Principal of the concerned College and it has also been countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools, which is also on record. It appears that the petitioner did not send a copy of the application under the registered cover to the Board directly. 11. It needs to be highlighted that for the similar relief a large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court by the students/candidates for correction of their date of birth. In all these cases, the consistent view taken by the Board is that if the application has not been filed in terms of Regulation 7, then the applications are invariably rejected on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Regulation 7. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and another, Special Appeal No. 1202 of 2010, decided on 03rd August, 2010, took the view that if there is a mistake in the record of the Board then the limitation of three years would not be attracted and the Board cannot reject the application on the ground of limitation. Relevant part of the observations of the Division Bench reads as under: “In the petition filed by the appellant, that plea was also taken before the learned Single Judge. Relevant part of the observations of the Division Bench reads as under: “In the petition filed by the appellant, that plea was also taken before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Judge held that as the application was filed beyond the time and was not maintainable, and that the appellant herein may file a civil suit for declaration of his Date of Birth. In the instant case, we find that Regulation 7, referred to above, refers to correction in the certificate of passing. There is no mistake in the certificate of passing. The mistake is in the records maintained by the Board. Therefore, the said Regulation would not be applicable so far as the case of the appellant is concerned. Once the respondents themselves had issued the certificate showing the Date of Birth of the appellant as 1st September, 1949, the respondent No. 2 was bound to correct the clerical mistake in the record of the Board.” 13. Regulation 7, as referred to above, is a subordinate legislation. It has been framed by the State Government exercising its powers under Section 16(2) of the Act. 14. Relevant it would be to mention that most of the High School and Intermediate Colleges recognized by the Board are in the rural and semi-urban areas. Majority of the students belonging to these educational institutions come from the marginalized and underprivileged section of the society. Young students and their semi-literate/illiterate guardians are not supposed to know the regulations framed by the Board. Therefore, in absence of knowledge of such Regulation, most of the students move their application after the limitation period provided under Regulation 7. I am not oblivious of the fact that ignorance of law is no excuse. But having regard to the large number of cases of similar nature and cause of action, it would be appropriate that the Board should direct all the Principal/Headmaster of the recognized institutions that the students should be made aware that the date of birth mentioned by them at the time of pre-registration in Standard-IX and at the time of submission of examination form of High School shall be final. It shall be duty of the Principal/Headmaster to verify their date of birth by some legally admissible evidence, such as, School Leaving Certificate of Primary School/Junior High School, etc. It shall be duty of the Principal/Headmaster to verify their date of birth by some legally admissible evidence, such as, School Leaving Certificate of Primary School/Junior High School, etc. The concerned institution shall maintain these documents for a reasonable period, which can be determined by the Board. 15. Coming to the facts of this case, the School Leaving Certificates issued by three Institutions clearly demonstrate that correct date of birth of the petitioner is 07th April, 1994. Therefore, it was a mistake in the record of the Board and for the said purpose, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram (supra), limitation of Regulation 7 would not be attracted. 16. After careful consideration of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to follow the procedure laid down under Regulation 7 and send a copy of the said application directly to the Board under the registered cover within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event, the petitioner follows such procedure, the Board will reconsider the matter and pass the appropriate order in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram (supra) and this order within two months from the date of receipt of such application. 17. No order as to costs.