Akash Sharma vs State Of U.P. 2 Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2127 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20863 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Akash Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. 2 Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jeet Bahadur Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2.

The petitioner by means of this writ petition is seeking a direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth as appearing in his High School Certificate of 2007. He has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.10.2014 issued by the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Meerut, refusing to correct his date of birth in the High School Certificate on the ground of limitation.

The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner appeared in the High School Examination of the year 2007 as a regular student  of Shrimad Brahmanand Inter College, Ramghat Road, Aligarh conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P.

The certificate-cum-mark-sheet of the said examination was issued to the petitioner on 05.06.2007. The said certificate mentions 01.01.90 as the date of birth of the petitioner.

The petitioner after passing High School obtained Transfer Certificate as well as Character Certificate from the above institution. Both the above certificates mentions 01.01.93 as his date of birth. The petitioner, thereafter, passed Intermediate from Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh, and took Transfer Certificate for the purposes of further studies from that institution also. His date of birth in the said certificate is again mentioned as 01.01.1993.

The institution, from where the petitioner appeared in the High School Examination has certified that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1993 as per the record of the school.

In the background of the aforesaid facts, the contention of the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 01.01.1993 and it also appears in the records of the School/College as well. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P., however, in issuing the certificate-cum-mark-sheet to the petitioner has committed a clerical mistake in mentioning it to be 01.01.90. Therefore, the date of birth of the petitioner as appearing in the High School Certificate is liable to be corrected, accordingly.

The application of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the High School Certificate has been rejected on the ground that it has been moved after more than two years of the issuance of the certificate.

Learned Standing Counsel submits as the Regulation provides for applying for the correction of the certificate within a period of 2 years of the issue of the certificate, there is no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner.

It is not disputed that the petitioner had not applied for correction of his date of birth as appearing in the High School Certificate immediately on receipt of the certificate, rather the application was filed on 01.10.2012, i.e., after about five years of issuance of the certificate.

Regulation-7 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides for a limitation of two years for seeking correction in the High School Certificate which has now been increased to three years. The said Regulation as in existence at the relevant time reads as under:-

fofu;e &-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 x;h gks] tks vlko/kkuh ls ifj"kn ds Lrj ds ;k ml laLFkk ds tgkWa ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk izkIr dh gks Lrj ij vfHkys[k esaa gks xbZ g¨A- ;g 'kqf) lfpo }kjk mlh fLFkfr esa dh tk ldsxh] tcfd vH;FkhZ us lEcfU/kr ijh{kk ds izek.k&i= ifj"kn }kjk fuxZeu dh frfFk ls nks o"k± ds vanj gh fyfidh; =qfV dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq;s lEcfU/kr iz/kkukpk;[email protected] 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

A bare reading of above Regulation indicates that the clerical mistake occurring in the certificate, issued by the High School and Intermediate Education Board  U.P. is rectifiable provided the candidate applies for its correction within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the certificate.

It is important to note that it is not the case of any party that the mistake of date of birth appearing in the High School Certificate of the petitioner had occurred due to any mistake on the part of the petitioner or that his correct date of birth is not 01.01.93 as appears in the records of the School/College, meaning thereby the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.93 and not 01.01.90 as mentioned in the High School Certificate.

An authority vested with the jurisdiction to issue a certificate and to maintain record of it has inherent power to rectify the mistake, if any, that may occur in the certificate so issued provide the mistake is genuine and the person concern has no role attached to it. Therefore, any mistake of a clerical nature accruing in the certificates can be rectified on the application of the candidate concern or even by the authority concern in suo motu exercise of its inherent power whenever the mistake comes to its notice. In other words, any mistake in the High School Certificate can always be rectified either on an application by the person concern or by the authority/Board itself in suo- motu exercise of its inherent power.

The limitation of moving an application for rectification of the mistake of a clerical nature appearing in the High School Certificate is for the candidates and not  for the Board to take suo-motu action in exercise of inherent power.

The law of limitation is founded on public policy so as to limit the life span of a litigation or the legal remedy. It does not aims to defeat the rights of the parties. In the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy,; (1998) 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court of India observed if the remedy availed by the party who has been wronged does not smack of malafides or is not by way of dilatory tactics, the Courts must show utmost consideration to the suitor. In other words, a bonafide delay may not by itself be treated as sufficient to debar the remedy particularly where the record exfacie shows miscarriage of justice.

In the instant case, there is no dispute that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1993 and that in the High School Certificate it has been incorrectly mentioned as 01.01.90.

The limitation of two years provided in applying for rectification of the certificate is applicable to the candidates but there is no limitation for the Board to exercise its inherent power to correct the certificate issued by it. Thus, the Board certainly in exercise of its suo motu inherent power is authorised to correct a clerical mistake or error appearing in the  High School Certificate once it is brought to its notice. It is incumbent duty of the Board to ensure that the certificates issued by it are correct and does not suffer from any error or mistake. Therefore, in order to put its records straight, the Board is under an obligation to correct all certificates issued by it irrespective of the limitation placed under Regulation-7 of Chapter-III of the Regulation in exercise of its inherent power in the particular facts and circumstances of the each case. The law of limitation cannot be pressed into service by the Board while exercising its inherent power so as to defeat the right of the petitioner to have his incorrect date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate rectified.

The Regional Secretary of the Board has simply rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, he failed in discharge the pious obligation to rectify the mistake occurring in the public record which are supposed to maintain correctly.

Accordingly, even if the application of the petitioner was beleted the Board ought to have corrected the mistake in exercise of suo-motto jurisdiction. The Regional Secretary of the Board has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in him in law in passing the order dated 21.10.2014. Thus the said order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Secretary, Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education U.P. to verify the record and, to correct the High School Certificate of 2007 as issued to the petitioner by mentioning his correct date of birth therein in exercise of his inherent power within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed but the parties shall bear their own costs.

Order Date :- 3.9.2015

v.k.updh.