Allahabad High Court
Shivam Trivedi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:65184
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8502 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shivam Trivedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education, Lucknow, U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Maurya,Kanchan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the high school mark sheet, 2016.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that that the petitioner had appeared in the high school examination and the marks sheet was issued on 15.05.2016 and his date of birth has been recorded incorrectly.
4. It is claimed that the petitioner preferred an application on 02.02.2022 for correction of his date of birth and no orders have been passed on the same.
5. On the other hand, Sri Saharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on the basis of instructions states that admittedly the petitioner had appeared in the high school examination in the year 2016. The mark sheet recorded his date of birth as 07.02.1998. His first application seeking correction in his date of birth has been received on 21.03.2022. However, considering the time limit of three years as laid down in Regulation 7 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1921"), it has not been found feasible to correct the date of birth as the application has been filed beyond three years.
6. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav Vs Central Board of Secondary Education reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535 to contend that the Apex court has held that such applications are to be moved within the time period prescribed in the bye-laws although whether a person could not change of his/her name out of his freewill in exercise of his guaranteed fundamental rights under the Constitution would have to be looked into in the facts of the circumstances of each case.
7. Accordingly, considering that a limitation of three years has been provided under the Regulation 7 of the Act, 1921 in which applications for correction of date of birth etc. are to be filed and admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an application seeking correction in his date of birth beyond the time specified and no reasonable reasons are forthcoming as to why the said application is moved beyond time accordingly, this Court does not find any occasion to issue a mandamus in the nature as has been prayed for.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
Pachhere/-
