Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shahprabha Dubey vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2015
Writ Petition No.17765/2010.
2.7.2015
Shri V.D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent no.1-State.
Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Heard.
Grievance putforth by the petitioner vide this writ petition is against alleged wrong recording of date of birth in mark- sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971.
Case of the petitioner is that though her date of birth is 26.11.1955 but the same has been recorded as 26.11.1952 in mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971. Whereas, in mark-sheet of High School Certificate Examination, 1970, her date of birth is recorded as 26.11.1955. It is contended that the Authorities of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh when was approached in 2010 seeking correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971, no action was taken, forcing the petitioner to file present petition.
On being noticed, respondents have filed return. Whereas, respondent no.1 has to submit that though no relief :: 2 ::
Writ Petition No.17765/2010
is being sought against respondent no.1; however, at the time of entry in the service record, petitioner having filed mark-
sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971, her date of birth has been recorded as 26.12.1952 in the service record and as per Rule 84 of M.P. Financial Code, date of birth once recorded on the basis of certificate produce is absolutely conclusive and except in case of clerical error, no revision of such declaration is allowed.
On behalf of respondent no.2, it is contended that correction of date of birth in the certificate/mark-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education is governed by the Rules namely Madhya Pradesh Date of Birth (Entries in the School Register) Rules, 1973 wherein; under Rules 7 and 8, provision has been made for effecting correction in the entry. Rule 9 restrict such correction if it is not done within a period stipulated under Rules 7 and 8.
Counsel for the respondent no.2 has also raised doubt about the mark-sheet of High School Certificate Examination, 1970 contending that the petitioner may be put to strict proof that Board of Secondary Education was conducting High School Certificate Examination, 1970. It is contended that for the first time in 2010, petitioner filed an application seeking correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School 2 :: 3 ::Writ Petition No.17765/2010
Certificate Examination, 1971 and the same is highly belated, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Considered rival contentions.
As to contention putforth by learned counsel for respondent no.2 regarding direction to the petitioner to prove the holding of High School Examination in 1970, learned counsel for the petitioner fails to commend to any such document or Rules establishing of conducting of such examination.
Thus, issuance of mark-sheet of High School Certificate Examination, 1970, on the basis whereof, the petitioner seeks correction of date of birth in mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971, is doubtful. Be that as it may.
Question as to whether at a belated stage i.e. in 2010, petitioner would be entitled for correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971.
Correction of date of birth in the marks-sheet/certificate is governed by Madhya Pradesh Date of Birth (Entries in the School Register) Rules, 1973 which prescribes the period of limitation. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1973 stipulates that no application for correction in date of birth recorded in school records shall be entertained under Rules 7 and 8 after the form for the Board's examination at the end of secondary level of 3 :: 4 ::Writ Petition No.17765/2010
education has been sent to the Board or after the student has left the school, if the student has not pursued education upto the end of secondary standard.
In Rajbali Singh v. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 276, it has been held -
"7. On a bare reading of the aforesaid rules it is absolutely clear that certain stages are provided for correction or change in the date of birth. Rule 9 makes it categorically clear that no application in regard to date of birth shall be entertained either under Rule 7 or 8 after the form for the Board's examination at the end of secondary level of education has been sent to the Board or after the student has left the school, if the student has not pursued education upto the end of secondary standard. Thus, the school authorities have no power to rectify the mistake after the forms are sent to the Board. On a perusal of the Rules it is graphically clear that there is no provision for correction of date of birth by the Board. In absence of any provision in the Rules the Board is entitled under law to provide guidelines for correction of date of birth. The Board has framed guidelines which have been brought on record as Annexure P-2. The said guidelines provide that on compliance of certain formalities there can be rectification of the date of birth. It has been laid down therein that the prayer for rectification or correction of date of birth would not be accepted after three years. Submission of Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel is that in absence of any limitation in the Rules the Board could not have provided a period of limitation in the guidelines. In my considered 4 :: 5 ::Writ Petition No.17765/2010
opinion as the Rules do not deal with the period of limitation the Board has the authority to stipulate a time limit for correction of the date of birth and I do not perceive any error in such a provision.
8. The next submission of Mr. Jain is that the petitioner after coming to know about the error made a representation to the Board in quite promptitude and there is no delay and therefore, he cannot be deprived of the benefit on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel has drawn the inspiration from the decision rendered in the case of S.C. Verma (supra). In the aforesaid case the Division Bench has dealt with the correction of date of birth relating to a Central Government employee and has interpreted the provisions under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. The Division Bench to reach its conclusions has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367. The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Court has come to hold that as there was discrimination in view of the law laid down in the case of Harnam Singh (supra) the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was susceptible and required to be interfered with. In my considered opinion the factual matrix of the aforesaid case is quite different from the present one. In the case at hand, the Board has its own guidelines and the petitioner has approached the Board after three and a half decades. The enormous delay clearly establishes that the fault on the part of the petitioner is colossus. It is well settled in law that a litigant who is not vigilant, is not entitled to any relief. At this juncture, I think it apposite to refer to a passage from Harnam Singh (supra) wherein their Lordships expressed thus :-
".... A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on 5 :: 6 ::Writ Petition No.17765/2010
for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession 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. In the absence of any provision in the Rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the Courts and Tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the Courts or Tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire." (emphasis supplied).
From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is quite vivid that unless the requisite application is submitted within the prescribed period the litigant has to suffer on the ground of delay and laches. In this context, I may profitably refer to the order passed in Santosh Kumar Shukla (supra) wherein C.K. Prasad, J. has held as under :--
"In any view of the matter, petitioner has asked for correction of his date of birth by filing an application after 19 years of the issuance of the certificate, on this ground alone, I am of the opinion 6 :: 7 ::Writ Petition No.17765/2010
that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for in the writ petition."
Thus the lis buried in the coffin, cannot rise like a phoenix."
In view of the law laid down in Rajbali Singh (supra) and provisions contained under Rules 7, 8 and 9 of Rules of 1973, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
As regard to claim by respondent no.2 concerning authenticity of mark-sheet of High School Certificate Examination, 1970, they are at liberty to cause an inquiry and if it is found to be not genuine, respondent no.2 is at liberty to take recourse under law.
With these observations, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod 7