Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Pandey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others on 4 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105466-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 552 of 2025 Appellant :- Amit Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Shrivastava, Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Jagdish Pathak (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2025 where by the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ-C No. 14963 of 2025 filed by the petitioner-appellant on the ground of laches of 17 years.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant appeared in High School Examination conducted by U.P. Board (in short 'the Board') from R.B. Rao Intermediate College, Rampur Buzurg, Salempur, District Deoria (in short 'the institution') in the year 2008 and passed the same. In the certificate issued by the Board, names of the appellant's mother and father were respectively mentioned as 'Shrimati Devi' and 'Shriman Dev'. The appellant immediately approached the Board with a request to correct the said names as 'Smt. Brijvasi Devi' and 'Girish Pandey' but he was asked to move through proper channel. The appellant, then, approached the Principal of the institution by submitting an application addressed to the Secretary of the Board through the Principal mentioning that the correct names of the appellant's mother and father were, respectively, "Smt. Brijvasi Devi" and "Girish Pandey" and, therefore, the error occurred in the certificate be corrected. The Principal, on 16.02.2010, forwarded the said application to the Regional Secretary of the Board with a positive recommendation in favour of the appellant.
4. The case of the appellant is that the Board did not take any decision on the application though submitted with no delay and he continued to study further and obtained B. Pharma degree in first division with distinction in the year 2023 from Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, U.P. When the appellant applied for registration with U.P. Medical Council, the application was not accepted by the Council on account of wrong entry of names of parents of the appellant in the High School certificate.
5. The appellant again moved applications dated 24.02.2024 and 03.09.2024 to the Board requesting correction in parents' names. He, then, sent an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Principal of the institution asking for copies of documents forwarded by the Principal to the Secretary of the Board. The Principal, vide communication dated 04.01.2025, furnished upon the appellant copies of documents earlier forwarded by him to the Board. The documents included application seeking correction, challan qua deposit of fees, original High School certificate, copy of scholar register, cross list of High School, affidavit of the appellant, gazette publication made in the newspaper, registration certificate of Class-IX, domicile certificate, family register, admit card and also application forwarded by the Principal to the Board in the year 2010.
6. Ultimately, the Board took up the appellant's application for correction and, by an order dated 20.02.2025 passed in a printed proforma, the application was rejected on the ground that the same was beyond time limit prescribed under Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short 'the Act of 1921'). The order was communicated to the appellant through letter dated 25.02.2025 reiterating the reason.
7. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order/communication dated 25.02.2025 by filing Writ-C No. 14963 of 2025, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 13.05.2025 by observing that the appellant passed High School Examination in the year 2008 and has filed the writ petition after 17 years and, therefore, there being inordinate delay in filing the petition, the same is barred by laches. It is the order dated 13.05.2025 against which the present special appeal has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that rejection of the claim of the appellant by the Board and dismissal of the writ petition on similar ground is not justified, inasmuch as there was no delay on his part in taking recourse to the measures for correction in the certificate, as the application was moved in the year 2010 itself, which was also duly forwarded by the Principal to the Board with positive recommendation, however, the Board did not take any decision on the same and, therefore, the appellant cannot be faulted. Further submission has been made that in all documents, i.e. marks-sheet and certificate of Intermediate, admit card pertaining to High School Examination, Transfer Certificate issued by the institution, domicile certificate and Pariwar Register issued by the competent authorities of the State Government, there was no error in the name of appellant's parents and, therefore, a case for correction stood made out but the Board as well as learned Single Judge have not examined these aspects of the matter and have cursorily rejected the prayer made.
9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 clearly prescribes a period of moving application seeking correction, i.e. three years from the date of issuance of certificate and since the order passed by the Secretary of the Board itself mentions that the application was received by the Board by registered post on 24.02.2024, the matter was clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, the Board did not err in rejecting the appellant's claim and the learned Single Judge was also justified in dismissing the writ petition as barred by laches.
10. We have considered the submissions made and have carefully perused the material on record. Regulation 7, which was made basis of rejection of the appellant's claim has also been read by us and it would be apt to quote the same for ready reference as under:-
"fofu;e&7 -
lfpo ifj"kn dh vksj ls lQy mEehnokjksa dks ifj"kn dh ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k i= fofgr izi= esa nsxk vkSj ckn esa mldh izfof"V;ksa esa dksbZ 'kqf} djsxk] c'krsZ fd izek.k i= esa fdlh ,slh xyr izfof"V fdlh vfopkfjr fyfidh; Hkwy ;k yksi ds dkj.k ;k fdlh ,slh fyfidh; Hkwy ds dkj.k dh x;h gks] tks vlko/kkuh ls ifj"kn ds Lrj ds ;k ml laLFkk ds] tgka ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk izkIr dh gks] Lrj ij vfHkys[k esa gks x;h gksA ;g 'kqf} lfpo }kjk mlh fLFkfr esa dh tk ldsxh tcfd vH;FkhZ us lacaf/kr ijh{kk ds izek.k i= dks ifj"kn }kjk fuxZeu dh frfFk ls rhu o"kZ ds vUnj gh fyfidh; =qfV dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq, lacaf/kr iz/kkukpk;[email protected] vf/kdkjh dks =qfV ds la'kks/ku gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fn;k gks vkSj mldh izfr iathd`r Mkd ls lfpo ifj"kn dks Hkh izsf"kr dh gksA izfrca/k ;g gS fd vH;FkhZ ds vad i= rFkk izek.k i= esa vH;FkhZ ds uke firk ds uke vFkok ekrk dk uke esa ;fn dksbZ orZuh =qfV gS rks vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk ;Fkkle; vkosnu djus ij mls ifj"kn ds lacaf/kr {ks=h; dk;kZy; ds {ks=h; lfpoksa }kjk izekf.kr lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij rRdky 'kq} dj fn;k tk;sxk A"
11. The aforesaid Regulation came up for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education and others: 2014 (3) ADJ 443 (DB), wherein the Bench critically examined the Regulation and held as under:-
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. ..........."
12. The co-ordinate Bench was, therefore, of the view that if correction is sought qua any spelling mistake occurred in the name of the applicant or his parents, the proviso would come to his aid and claim cannot be rejected on the ground of any limitation; more specifically, three years period prescribed in the Regulation would not be utilized to reject the claim. Identical interpretation, though not detailed one, was made by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Babu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2010 ADJ Online 0242, wherein the Court was of the view that if the mistake is in the records maintained by the Board, the limitation prescribed in the Regulation would not be applicable and, accordingly, a direction was issued to the Board to carry out correction in the documents.
13. We may here refer to a comprehensive judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others: (2021) 7 SCC 535, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered different categories of correction sought by a candidate in his testimonials. For the purposes of the instant case, reference to paragraph no. 171 of the judgment in Jigya Yadav (supra) can be made. The same reads as under :-
"171. As regards request for "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.
(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).
(b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant."
14. When the above ratio laid in Jigya Yadav (supra) is examined in the light of the facts of the instant case, the matter would certainly fall within first category, i.e. it has to be seen as to whether the correction sought was in consonance with different documents, like birth certificate, Adhar Card/election card etc. Notably, in the present case, the names of the appellant's parents are clearly and correctly mentioned as 'Smt. Brijvasi Devi' and 'Girish Pandey' in domicile certificate, transfer certificate and all other testimonials except in the High School certificate where, in fact, there is a clear omission to mention the names of parents. Apparently, such names are recorded as 'Shrimati Devi' and 'Shriman Dev'.
15. We have also thoroughly discussed the judgment in Jigya Yadav (supra) in our recent decision in State of U.P. and 2 others Vs. Md. Sameer Rao and 3 others, 2025 (2) ADJ 423 (DB). Though that was a case where the candidate had sought to adopt completely new name by choice and we found his case as falling into second category described in paragraph no. 171 of the judgment in Jigya Yadav (supra) and turned down the request with an observation that the candidate could obtain a declaration from the civil court and, then, apply to the Board seeking change in his name, the facts of the instant case are different to the extent that the case of the appellant falls under first category of proposed correction described in paragraph no. 171 of Jigya Yadav (supra).
16. From the record it reflects that it is not a kind of general case of some spelling mistake in the names of the parents, like 'Girish'/Gireesh'/'Brijvasi'/'Brajwasi'/'Pandey'/'Pande' etc.; rather, it reflects that for some reason or the other, may be on account of a default system of the Board or for any other alike reason, the names of the parents, i.e. 'Girish Pandey' or 'Brijvasi Devi' were not even mentioned in the certificate. Hence, we are of the view that it is a case of 'omission to mention the name' and the request of the appellant was, in fact, regarding 'insertion' of the names of his parents. This is a special feature of this case, which has not been seen either by the Board or by the learned Single Judge who cursorily rejected the claim on the ground of limitation prescribed under Regulation 7 which, we find, has no application in the present case in view of the proviso attached to the Regulation as discussed and interpreted in Anand Singh (supra).
17. As far as belated filing of application or writ petition is concerned, we find that not only the Board but also the learned Single Judge has not carefully perused the record in this regard. As noted above, the appellant passed High School Examination in the year 2008 and having noticed omission to mention his parent's names in the certificate, he immediately approached the Principal of the institution, who forwarded the appellant's application to the Board with no delay on 16.02.2010 with positive recommendation qua correction but no order was passed by the Board. It appears that since in all other documents there was no error qua names of the appellant's parents, the appellant continued to study further without any difficulty and, ultimately, obtained B. Pharma degree in first class with distinction in the year 2023 and it is only when the Medical Council refused to entertain his application for registration based upon B. Pharma degree on the ground that in the High School certificate, names of the appellant's parents were incorrectly mentioned, the appellant re-agitated his request for correction/appropriate insertion in the certificate by filing applications in the year 2024. Merely because the Board entertained the subsequent applications of 2024 in the year 2025, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the appellant in approaching the authorities, particularly when prayer was very much made in the year 2010 itself without any decision thereon by the Board.
18. We also find that the writ petition contained detailed and specific averments explaining the developments right from year 2008 till 2025 and, hence, it cannot be said that alleged laches in approaching the Court were not explained by the appellant. We are of the view that the appellant, immediately after rejection of his application, approached this Court and, hence, dismissal of the writ petition as barred by laches, cannot be said to be justified. Accordingly, we find the appellant entitled for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
19. The instant special appeal as well as Writ-C No. 14963 of 2025 stand allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.05.2025 as well as the orders dated 20.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 issued by the Regional/Additional Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, U.P., Regional Office, Varanasi are hereby quashed.
20. A direction is issued to the Secretary of the said Board to carry out necessary correction and insertion in the High School certificate of the appellant by incorporating the names of his father and mother, respectively, as 'Girish Pandey' and 'Smt. Brijvasi Devi' within a period of three weeks from the date an application alongwith true attested/ certified copy of this order is placed by the appellant before the Secretary. Corrected certificate shall be issued to the appellant immediately thereafter without without any delay.
Order Date :- 4.7.2025 AKShukla/-
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)