Vikas Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8722 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1963 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Vikas Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Mratunjay Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4.

Notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct date of birth of the petitioner as 7.9.2003 in High School Mark Sheet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while studying in Vimla Devi Public Inter College, Kaudha, Hardoi appeared in the High School Examination, 2017 conducted by Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and admit card was issued and the petitioner's roll Number was 1117666. The result was declared on 9.6.2017, in which the petitioner was declared successful with 67.16% makrs. The petitioner after declaration of the result saw the mark sheet on Internet which shows the date of birth as wrongly transcribed as 7.9.2001. The petitioner informed the school with a written request on 19.6.2017.

It is submitted that instead of correct date of birth of the petitioner, i.e. 7.9.2003, incorrect date of birth 7.9.2001 has been recorded in the High School mark sheet and certificate of the petitioner. After receiving the original mark sheet from the school on 19.8.2017, the petitioner submitted an application through his father on 24.8.2017 to the Principal of the College. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application along with declaration on the prescribed format of the Board with an affidavit by parent, transfer certificate of Class-VII, issued by Shri Guru Ram Rai Public School, Shahabad, Hardoi and other required documents on 26.12.2020 through Speed Post with a request to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the High School mark sheet.

It is submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the Aadhar Card and School record is 7.9.2003 which is evident from perusal of the transfer certificate issued by Sri Guru Ram Rai Public School, Shahabad Raod, Hardoi. It is submitted that the petitioner has passed High School in the year 2017 and even after lapse of six years, the respondents have not made correction in the mark sheet. It is submitted that recording of incorrect date of birth in the High School mark sheet has caused great prejudice to the petitioner as it will affect his future employment and other benefits.

4. Per contra, Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has relied on Part II B, Chapter III Regulation 7 framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 2021 as amended in 2013 and submits that an application for correct of date of birth in the High School certificate has to be given within three years from the date of issuance of the certificate by the Board. In this case, the application to the Board has been given on prescribed format by the petitioner on 26.12.2020 which is admittedly after expiry of three years of period. Therefore, no order has been passed by the Board, nor could have been passed as the Board is not authorised to pass any order after lapse of three years stipulated period. Law in this regard has been settled by a Division Bench of this court in Anand Singh vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education and others (2014)3 ADJ 443 (DB). Relevant part of the judgment in the case of Anand Singh is extracted below :

"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. "

5. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that 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 further provides that the candidate has to submit an application within three years of the date of issue of the certificate. In the proviso to Regulation 7, 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. No time limit of three years is prescribed in proviso of Regulation 7 for submission of application for making correction in the certificate issued by the Board in regard to the name of the candidate or their parents. However, while making any correction with regard to the date of birth, the requirement of moving application within prescribed period of three years was held to be mandatory 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.

6. In the case in hand, admittedly, the application for correction of date of birth has been given beyond the period of three years, therefore, such application cannot be considered under substantive part of Regulation 7 of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 2021.

7. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.3.2023

kkb/