Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rinki Rani vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 12 February, 2015
Author: Shashi Kant Gupta
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8531 of 2015 Petitioner :- Smt. Rinki Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondents No. 2 & 3 for correcting the name of her father in the her High School Certificate issued in the year 1996.
Brief facts of the case are as follows;
The petitioner appeared in High School Examination-1996 and was declared successful. According to the petitioner, the actual name of her father is Vir Singh but the name of her father was incorrectly mentioned as Suresh Chandra Gaur in the High School Certificate issued to her in the year 1996. It has been stated that sometime in the year 1997-1998, the petitioner through her father contacted the principal of the concerned college seeking his guidance for rectifying the mistake occurred in her High School Certificate. The principal of the college after verifying the records of the petitioner available in the college took the application from the petitioner along with her original certificate relating to her High School Examination 1996 with expenses and assured the petitioner and her father that he will get necessary correction done in the certificate of the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2012 the petitioner and her father again contacted the principal of the college concerned and they were informed by the principal that necessary corrections has been done in the certificate of the petitioner but her original certificate is missing from his office. In order to verity this fact, the petitioner applied for the duplicate certificate from the board and it was found that no correction has been made in her said certificate, as such, the father of the petitioner moved an application on 24.1.2015 through the principal of the college before the Respondent No. 3 for correcting the said mistake but nowhere in the said application it has been stated as to when the petitioner had earlier moved an application for correction of the name of the father of the petitioner. Now, the petitioner after moving the said application dated 24.1.2015 has filed this writ petition before this Court on 10.2.2015 seeking a direction to the Respondents No. 2 & 3 for correcting the name of the father of the petitioner in the High School certificate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the Regulation 7 framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended on 20.9.2013, no time limit has been given for correcting the names of the father and mother of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the candidate and further placed reliance upon a division bench decision of this Court dated 11.2.2014 in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education and others.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek correction of the name of her father in the High School Certificate after lapse of nearly 18 years and the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the High School Certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 1996 and there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner had approached the competent authority for the correction of the name of her father until 2015. Although the story has been made that in the year 1997 the petitioner had approached the principal of the concerned college for his guidance and she handed over the certificate to him for getting the same corrected and thereafter again after 15 years in the year 2012, she approached the principal to find out the fate of the application which she had submitted to it for correcting the name of the father in the said certificate. This story set up by the petitioner does not appear to be inspiring. First of all, as to why the petitioner after submitting the alleged application to the principal along with her original certificate in the year 1997-1998 relating to her High School Examination-1996 remained quiet for nearly 15 years and approached the Principal after nearly 15 years to find out the fate of her application. Even the name of the principal of the college has not been mentioned to whom the application was given in the year 1997 and in the meantime the principal of the college must have been retired. There is no documentary evidence worth the name that any application was forwarded to the Board through principal for correction of the school certificate.
At this juncture, it will be useful to reproduce the extract of Regulation 7 (English translation) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 amended on 20.9.2013 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."
A perusal of the proviso to Regulation 7 clearly shows 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. In the present case, it is not a case of correction of any spelling mistake of the name of father in the High School Certificate but it is a case where the name Suresh Chandra Gaur shown as father of the petitioner in the high school certificate is to be substituted by another name "Vir Singh". Secondly, the proviso to Regulation 7 though does not provide the time limit but the application for correction should have been filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, the application for correction in the name of father has been filed in the year 2015 i.e. nearly after 18 years. The petitioner can not be permitted to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court according to her sweet will and pleasure at any point of time. The decision of the division bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. UP Board of Secondary Education and others (supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not at all applicable in the present matter. In the said case, the application for correction in the High School certificate was sought within a period of four years after its issuance while in the present case, the application for correction has been filed after nearly 18 years. At this stage, I am fortified in my view by the decision of the apex court in the case of Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and others (2013) 10 SCC 627 wherein in paragraph 9, the apex court has observed as follows;
"Even if we assume that no limitation is prescribed in any statute to file an application before the court in that case, can an aggrieved person come before the court at his sweet will at any point of time ? The answer must be in the negative. If no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before the appropriate forum, in that case, he has to come before the court within a reasonable time. This Court on a number of occasions, while dealing with the matter of similar nature held that where even no limitation has been prescribed, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time. In our considered opinion, the period of 9 years and 11 months, is nothing but an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy of a person and without submitting any cogent reason therefor. The court has no power to condone the same in such case. (See: Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [2012 (8) SCC 524], State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty [2011 (3) SCC 436] and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh [1986 (4) SCC 531]. In these cases, it has been held that the application should be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay. Furthermore, it is to be noted that appointment of the appellant was within the knowledge of respondent No.1 from day one but he did not take any steps for such a long time."
In the aforesaid case, the apex court has clearly held that if no time limit has been prescribed in any statute to apply before the appropriate forum, in that case, the aggrieved person should come before the court within a reasonable time.
The petitioner in the present case remained in deep slumber and woke up after 18 years to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. She was supposed to be more vigilant. If any application for correction of the name of the parents was to be filed it should have been filed within a reasonable period of time. The filing of the present petition after a lapse of 18 years seeking direction for correcting the name of the father of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse to the process of the Court.
In view of the above, I do not see any justification to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the instant writ petition will not prevent the Board from considering the representation of the petitioner for correcting the name of her father in the High School Certificate.
Order Date :- 12.2.2015 vinay