Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1018 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Annu Verma

2022-07-06

J.J.MUNIR, RAJESH BINDAL

body2022
ORDER : 1. This is a respondents’ appeal arising out of the judgment and order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing Writ-C No. 5412 of 2021. 2. The writ petitioner, who is respondent no. 1 to this appeal, passed her High School Examination in the year 2014 from the Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. She was issued with a certificate-cum-marks sheet dated 30th May, 2014. Her High School Certificate-cum-Mark Sheet indicates her date of birth to be 20.07.1999. It is the petitioner’s case that she passed her Primary Education (Class-V) from the Primary Vidyalya, Saraiya-I, District Basti on 20.07.1999 and her date of birth recorded in her school records, including the School Leaving Certificate, is 07.07.1987. She passed her Class-VIII examination from Janta Laghu Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahulani Bujurg Bajar, Govindpara, Basti on 30.06.2002. In the Scholar’s Register and the Transfer Certificate issued by the Institution last mentioned, the petitioner’s date of birth is again recorded as 07.07.1987. She sought admission to Class-IX in the Ramdas Uday Pratap Audyogik Inter College, Bhatpurwa, Chilma Bajar, Basti through an application made for the purpose. In the said application form, jointly signed by the petitioner-respondent no. 1 and her guardian, her date of birth was accurately mentioned as 07.07.1987. 3. It is the petitioner’s further case that while making her application to the Board of High School & Intermediate Education to appear in the High School Examination of the year 2014, she correctly mentioned her date of birth as 07.07.1987, which accords with her recorded date of birth in the different institutions that she has attended. 4. Nevertheless, in her High School Certificate issued, the Authorities of the Board incorrectly recorded her date of birth as 20.07.1999, instead of 07.07.1987. The petitioner thereafter married. Her husband was employed with the Medical Health Department. The petitioner’s husband’s employer demanded details of his family members with their names, age and other details. It was then that the petitioner noticed that her date of birth has been incorrectly mentioned in her High School Certificate-cum-Mark Sheet. 5. The petitioner-respondent no. 1 filed an application on the prescribed proforma, seeking correction of her date of birth in the month of August, 2020. The application aforesaid was made to the Regional Secretary, Board of High School & Intermediate Education, Varanasi. It was duly supported by an affidavit and other documents. 5. The petitioner-respondent no. 1 filed an application on the prescribed proforma, seeking correction of her date of birth in the month of August, 2020. The application aforesaid was made to the Regional Secretary, Board of High School & Intermediate Education, Varanasi. It was duly supported by an affidavit and other documents. Faced with inaction, the petitioner submitted, through registered post, a reminder dated 26.10.2020 and again one dated 02.11.2020, also addressed to the Regional Secretary. The Board of High School & Intermediate Education, Varanasi took no action on the petitioner’s application for correction sought to her date of birth. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 preferred Writ-C No. 5412 of 2021, which has come to be allowed by the learned Single Judge, ordering the appellant-Board and the State of U.P. in the appropriate department to correct the petitioner’s date of birth in her High School Certificate-cum Mark Sheet by substituting the date as 07.07.1987 for 20.07.1999. The corrected certificate has been ordered to be issued to the petitioner within one month of the date of presentation of a copy of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appellant-Board and the State of U.P. in the Department of Secondary Education have challenged the aforesaid judgment and order, seeking its reversal. 7. Heard Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-respondent no. 1. 8. The appellants assail the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge on the sole ground that the writ petitioner had no right to correction of her date of birth, inasmuch as she filed application beyond the period of two years of the date of issue of her High School Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet. The Rule of Limitation provided under Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, 'the Act of 1921') bars the petitioner’s right to seek correction. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Rule of Limitation cannot be circumvented by falling back on considerations of any kind of equity. It is urged that the Rule of Limitation cannot be given a go-by. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Rule of Limitation cannot be circumvented by falling back on considerations of any kind of equity. It is urged that the Rule of Limitation cannot be given a go-by. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent no.1 submitted that the prohibition carried in Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 is confined to cases, where there is a mistake in any ‘Pass Certificate’ issued by the Board, and not where the mistake is in the records maintained by the Board that is reflected in the certificate. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar on behalf of both parties, perused the record and the judgment impugned. 11. The Rule of Limitation postulated in Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations has to be understood for its true purpose and not applied to every situation where correction is sought to particulars mentioned in the certificate-cum-statement of marks. A Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and another, 2010 SCC OnLine All 1403 held that the Rule of Limitation would not apply if the mistake is in the records maintained by the Board as distinguished from a mistake in the certificate of passing. It was held in Babu Ram (supra): “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.” 12. This decision has been followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajay Kumar v. Secretary Secondary Education Board, U.P., Allahabad and others, 2014(2) AWC 1765 . In Ajay Kumar (supra), it was observed: “6. From the records it is evident that in all the previous certificates of the petitioner, his date of birth is shown as 16.01.1994. Thus, the mistake appears to be clerical one. In Ajay Kumar (supra), it was observed: “6. From the records it is evident that in all the previous certificates of the petitioner, his date of birth is shown as 16.01.1994. Thus, the mistake appears to be clerical one. It is not the case that the petitioner wants to get his age reduced by the correction, but his age would be enhanced. Thus, the intention of the petitioner does not appear to take undue advantage by moving such application. The application is evidently bona fide. 7. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with the similar facts and also the Regulation-7 in Special Appeal No. 1202 of 2010 (Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and another), decided on 03rd August, 2010. The Court has found that Regulation-7 refers to correction in the certificate of passing and if there is any mistake in the record maintained by the Board, Regulation-7 would not be applicable. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the judgment of the Division Bench is quoted below: "Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as under:- ^^7- lfpo] ifj"kn dh vksj ls lQy mEehnokjksa dks ifj"kn~ dh ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gksus dks Áek.k&i= fofgr Ái= esa nsxk vkSj ckn esa mldh Áfo"V;ksa esa dksbZ 'kqf) djsxk c'krsZ fd Áek.k&i= esa fdlh ,slh xyr Áfof"V] fdlh vopkfjr fyfidh; Hkwy ;k yksi ds dkj.k ;k fdlh Ásl fyfidh; Hkwy ds dkj.k dh xbZ gks tks vlko/kkuh ls ifj"kn ds Lrj ds ;k ml laLFkk ds] tgkWa ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk ÁkIr 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 Áek.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 Á/kkukpk;Z@dsUnz O;oLFkkid dks =qfV ds la'kks/ku gsrq ÁkFkZuk&i= ÁLrqr dj fn;k gks vkSj mldh Áfr iathd`r Mkd ls lfpo] ifj"kn~ dks Hkh Ásf"kr dh gksA** 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. 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." 8. Keeping in the mind the aforesaid law it is evident in the present case that the petitioner's date of birth has been correctly mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate of Class-V, School Leaving Certificate of Class-VIII as well as in the Transfer Certificate of Intermediate, however, in the record of the Board an incorrect date as 11.01.1996 has been recorded. Thus, the provisions of Regulation-7 is not attracted in the facts of the present case.” 13. Here too, the petitioner's date of birth has been correctly recorded in all the school records, including the one wherefrom she sat the High School Examination leading to the issue of the High School Certificate. It is also not disputed that the petitioner filled her date of birth in her application form submitted to the Board for the purpose of appearing in her High School Examination correctly mentioning it as 07.07.1987. The mistake was made in the records of the Board. It is not just a mistake in the High School Certificate issued to the petitioner so as to attract the Rule of Limitation carried in Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations. The principle adumbrated by the Division Bench in Babu Ram’s case squarely applies here. Quite apart, the Rule of Limitation seeks to protect and preserve the sanctity of date of birth entered in the High School Certificate against changes, where some benefit from the change may be drawn by the applicant. The principle adumbrated by the Division Bench in Babu Ram’s case squarely applies here. Quite apart, the Rule of Limitation seeks to protect and preserve the sanctity of date of birth entered in the High School Certificate against changes, where some benefit from the change may be drawn by the applicant. Invariably, the benefit may be claimed for the purpose of eligibility in matters of employment or assertion of a right or the date when a person would superannuate, if in government service. Here, the petitioner is a married woman, who avowedly seeks the rectification to ensure that the particulars of her husband's family members furnished to his employers are accurate. More so, the change that is desired will enhance the age of the first respondent by about 12 years if the date of birth is corrected from the one mistakenly recorded by the Board in their records. It does not ostensibly or otherwise afford any kind of gain or advantage to the petitioner-respondent no.1. 14. In the entirety of circumstances, in our considered opinion, the appellants have erred in resisting petitioner-respondent no.1's claim to the rectification of the date of birth in the records of the Board and her High School Certificate-cum-Mark Sheet. It may be noticed that no decision, contrary to the view expressed by the Division Bench in Babu Ram’s case, has been brought to our notice by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants. Also, we are supported in the view that we take on broader principle by the holding of the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/ Father Hari Singh) v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, (2021) 7 SCC 535 . 15. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, which we hereby affirm. The appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.