Allahabad High Court
Ankit Singh vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 23 July, 2019
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A. F. R. Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23877 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ankit Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rizwan Ahmad(Qureshi) Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dhananjay Awasthi Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 03/13.11.2018, passed by the competent authority of the National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, Allahabad rejecting the application of the petitioner for correction in the name of his father, as recorded in the Intermediate Examination Certificate, issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "NIOS") The order dated 03/13.11.2018 invalidates the claim of the petitioner, on the foot, that the application was submitted three years after the date of registration. The application was barred by limitation; the limitation period being three years, from the date of registration with the NIOS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi, submits that the respondent authorities have misdirected themselves in law. The provision relating to the limitation has been construed in a pedantic fashion. The petitioner had adequate and sufficient reason for the delay, in submitting the correction application. The authorities failed to apply their mind to the aforesaid facts in the record.
He relies on a judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad, reported at 2014 (3) ADJ 443.
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, in his usual fairness does not dispute the ratio of the judgement of this Court in the case of Anand Singh (supra).
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Certain relevant facts are established beyond the pale of dispute, which are relevant for the judgement of this case.
The petitioner appeared in the High School examination, conducted by the U.P. Board in the year 2013. The petitioner appeared in the Class 12 examination, conducted by the NIOS, in the year 2015. The name of the father of the petitioner, was incorrectly transcribed in the High School certificate, issued by the U.P. Board, as well as the Class 12 examination certificate issued by the NIOS.
The petitioner made an application before the U.P. Board, for rectifying the aforesaid defect in the High School Certificate. The application of the petitioner was allowed, and the name of the father of the petitioner, was corrected by the U.P. Board. The corrected certificate was issued in the year, 2017 by U.P. Board. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the NIOS, firstly, on 25.05.2017, (copy of which as per the petitioner has been misplaced). On the second occasion, an application was moved for correction in the Class 12 certificate, issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling, as per the prescribed procedure, and with the deposit of requisite fee on 07.07.2018.
However, the impugned order was passed, rejecting the application of the petitioner, on grounds of delay and being barred by limitation.
The issue relating to consequences of delay in submitting the application for correction in the names of the parents of a candidate, came up for consideration before this Court, in the case of Anand Singh (supra). In an enduring statement of law, the learned Division Bench of this Court in Anand Singh (supra), held that the issue of limitation in regard to the change in the name of the parents of a candidate, cannot be considered in a pedantic fashion:-
"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. (emphasis supplied) 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." (emphasis supplied) Anand Singh (supra) related to the provisions under the Intermediate Education Act, for like correction in the name of the parents of a candidate. However, the law laid down therein, would apply to the facts of the case, and rule the approach of the courts in such matters. Courts have thus set their face, against a highly technical approach to the issue of limitation in such cases, which leads to a miscarriage of justice.
In the facts of this case, the petitioner had sufficient and adequate grounds, which caused the delay, in submission of the application.
The reasons disclosed by the petitioner, for delay in the submission of application for correction, in the name of his father, is good and sufficient. The case of the petitioner is covered by the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anand Singh (supra).
In light of the preceding narrative, the order dated 03/13-11-2018 passed by the competent authority of the National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, Allahabad, is arbitrary and illegal. The order dated 03/13-11-2018 cannot stand.
The order dated03/13-11-2018 is quashed.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2, Regional Director, National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, Prayagraj.
A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 2 to execute the following directions:
1. The respondent no. 2, shall consider the application of the petitioner for correction in the name of his father, as recorded in the Class 12 certificate, issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling on its merits, without going into the question of delay.
2. The respondent no. 2, while deciding the representation, shall ensure that the particulars of the father of the petitioner in the Class 12 certificate issued by the NIOS, is made consistent with the said details in the corrected certificate issued by the U.P. Board.
3. The petitioner, shall submit a fresh application and all relevant documents before the respondent no. 2 along with a certified copy of this order.
4. The exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2019 Dhananjai