Amit Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3879 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7918 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Shankar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent no.2 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the High School Marksheet and certificate mentioned as 05.07.1988 in place of 01.03.1987.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee in Tiwari Jwala Prasad Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah in the year 2006 on the basis of Class-VIII certificate. On a complaint made by someone with respect to date of birth of the petitioner shown in the High School marksheet and certificate, it was found that the petitioner's date of birth as shown in the High School is 01.03.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the competent authority for correction of date of birth in the High School Marksheet as well as certificate to be corrected as 01.03.1987 in place of 05.07.1988, but nothing has been done till date. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of Regulation 7 of Chapter II (Part-II-B) of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, for correction in date of birth, an application has to be moved within three years from the date of issuance of the concerned Certificate by the Board. He further submits that the relief as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted as the petitioner has not moved any application within stipulated period as required under the law and in order to save his job, which he had obtained in the year 2006, the present relief is being prayed. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The limitation for the correction, in the date of birth is provided, in Regulation 7 of Chapter 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The provisions are extracted here under:-

"The Secretary shall, on behalf of the Board, issue a certificate in the prescribed form to successful candidates of having passed the examination and to make any corrections subsequently in the entries thereof provided that such incorrect entries had been made in the certificate due to any inadvertent clerical error or omission or due to any clerical error which had crept inadvertently at the level of the Board or at the level of the institution last attended. This correction may be made by the Secretary only when the candidate has submitted an application for rectification of the mistake to the Principal/Manager concerned within three years from the date of issuance of the certificate by the Board and one copy has also been sent to the Secretary by registered post:

Provided that any spelling mistake in the marksheet or the certificate issued to the candidate in regard to the name of the candidate or the name of his father or mother shall be corrected after due verification by the Regional Secretary of the concerned Regional Office at the earliest upon submission of an application by the candidate."

The restrictions in the aforesaid provisions are that the incorrect entries made in the certificates are liable to be corrected, only "on account of any inadvertent clerical error or omission or due to any clerical error which had crept inadvertent at the level of the Board or at the level of the institution last attended".

The Board does not have the authority in law to entertain applications for alteration in date of birth as recorded in the certificate issued by the Board, after the expiry of a period of three years, from the date of issuance of the certificate. The provision was interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad, reported in 2014 (3) ADJ 443. The Court while holding that the provisions of limitation in regard to the change in date of birth was imperative held thus:-

"The substantive part of Regulation 7 provides for the correction of such entries in the certificate which have arisen because of any inadvertent clerical mistake or omission in the records of the Board or the Institution last attended by the candidate. It also provides that for this purpose, the candidate has to submit an application within three years of the date of issue of the certificate. However, under the proviso, any spelling mistake occurring in the name of the applicant or in the name of the applicant's father/mother in the certificate can be corrected when an application is filed for this purpose. The nature of the error which is contemplated in the substantive part of Regulation 7 is not the same as contemplated in its proviso nor is any time limit set out in the proviso.

It would be useful to examine the particulars of the candidate that are contained in a certificate issued by the Board. They include the year of the examination, the name of the candidate, the names of the parents, date of birth, subjects opted, division obtained, name of the School/Centre, certificate number, appearance as a regular/private candidate and the date of issue of the certificate. Of these, the date of birth, the subjects opted, the year of examination and the division obtained by the candidate are particulars which have an important bearing when admission to higher classes or employment is sought by the candidate. While making any correction in the entries relating to these matters, the requirement of moving the application within three years has to be adhered to as any correction in regard to these entries would have an impact on the rights of other candidates when they seek admission to higher classes or employment. However, the other particulars contained in the certificate, like the name of the candidate or the names of the parents of the candidate are not that relevant and any correction made in regard to these particulars would have no impact on the admission or employment of other candidates. When so considered, we feel persuaded to hold that the time limit of three years prescribed in the substantive part of Regulation 7 for submission of an application for making correction in the certificate issued by the Board in regard to the name of the candidate or the names of the parents of the candidate should not be insisted upon, particularly when the Board itself has considered it appropriate to have no time limit under the proviso for making correction in regard to any spelling mistake in the name of the candidate or his parents. The applicant must, however, explain to the Board the reasons on the basis of which the application could not be submitted earlier and if it is found that the claim is bona fide and is otherwise justified, there is no reason to reject the application, as in the present case, merely on the ground of delay. Undoubtedly, the Board has to examine whether any genuine ground has been made out for correcting the name and it would be open to the Board to consider all the relevant materials pertaining to the request for correction of the name"

In another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Smt. Noorjahan and another reported in 2017 (4) ADJ 770 (DB)(LB), this Court has held that a date of birth mentioned in service book not be changed subsequently at fag end of service. The correction sought after more than two and half decades at fag end of service, could not be allowed. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are as under:-

"5. Law in respect to correction in date of birth is well-settled that such a claim cannot be entertained after a long time, particularly at the fag end of retirement. The tendency of employees of disputing date of birth at the fag end of retirement has been seriously deprecated by Apex Court, time and again, and it would be useful to refer some of such authorities on the subject.

6. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. M. Hayagreev Sharma, 1990 (2) SCC 682, Court held that date of birth recorded in service book cannot be altered after long time and that too at the fag end of retirement. In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and others v. Rangadhar Mallik, 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 763, it was held that representation made for correction in date of birth, near about at the time of superannuation, shall not be entertained. The aforesaid law was reiterated in Union of India v. Hari Ram Singh, 1993 (2) SCC 162 and Court held:

''A Government servant, who has declared his age at initial stage of the employment is, off course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in position of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government Servant must do so without any unreasonable delay.''

The settled position of law being that the provisions relating to limitation is mandatory and the admitted position of fact is that the petitioner has made an application for the correction of date of birth after a lapse of seventeen years from the date of passing High School Examination, i.e. in the year 2005. The petitioner has also failed to provide a bonafide explanation for the delay of the same. Therefore, this Court does not found any reason to interfere. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.5.2022

Jitendra/-