Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 November, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149563
CWP-30912-2024 -1-
121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-30912-2024
Date of decision: 18.11.2024
SUNITA DEVI
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner on her
educational certificates with a further prayer to quash the judgment dated
06.04.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Fatehabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the correct date of
birth of the petitioner was 16.07.1991 as recorded in her birth certificate but it
was incorrectly entered as 05.05.1989 in her Middle Standard and Secondary
Examination Certificates issued by the Board of School Education, Bhiwani. He
further submitted that the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and
mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149563
Division), Fatehabad, which was dismissed on 06.04.2024 vide Annexure P-3.
He further submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly
entered, which is required to be corrected on the basis of her Birth Certificate
and therefore, directions are being sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the judgment dated 06.04.2024 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad and also a
writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to correct the date
of birth on the educational certificates of the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory
injunction, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Fatehabad vide Annexure P-3 on 06.04.2024. The petitioner did not
file any appeal against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad and instead filed the present writ
petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the aforesaid
judicial order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Fatehabad.
5. The law in this regard is well settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Radhey Shyam and another versus Chhabi Nath and others, 2015 (5) SCC
423 observed that such kind of writ petition seeking issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari would not be maintainable against a judicial order because
writ in the nature of certiorari would be maintainable only against either a quasi
judicial order or an administrative order. The petitioner instead of availing the
remedy of filing an appeal against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149563
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad chose to file the present
writ petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, which is not
maintainable.
6. Since writ of certiorari is not maintainable and the petitioner has
chosen not to avail the remedy of filing an appeal, writ of mandamus will also
not lie in the present case.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
18.11.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
