Allahabad High Court
Hari Prateek Saxena vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 July, 2019
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23673 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hari Prateek Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2019 rejecting the application for change in date of birth. The order dated 18.04.2019 records that the application for change in date of birth was submitted by the petitioner on 15.11.2017. The application was barred by limitation provided under Regulation 7 of Chapter 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
From the record it is established that the High School certificate, was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 30.05.2014. The petitioner states, that his father submitted an application, for change in the date of birth, on 15.11.2017. Admittedly the application was submitted three years after the issuance of the certificate by the Board. 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 same is extracted here under:-
??????? ?????? ??????- 7 "???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? - ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???????????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? , ?????? ?? ?????? - ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??, ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????? , ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? - ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ???????????? / ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? - ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? , ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?
??????? ??????
????????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???, ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???????"
The English translation of the aforesaid Regulation 7 would read as follows:-
"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 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 in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad, reported at 2014 (3) ADJ 443. This 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"
The settled position of law being that the provisions relating to limitation is mandatory and the admitted position of fact is that the application was submitted after a period of three years. This Court does not found any reason to interfere.
The Board has to process the applications for correction in the names of the parents of the candidate as per the regulations governing the affairs of the Board. The procedure is summary and the jurisdiction of the Board is limited.
However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, if so advised, for necessary relief. This matter would require consideration of evidence before a declaration in this regard can be issued.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 Pravin