Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing Anand Singh vs U.P. Board Of Secondary Education And 2 ... on 11 February, 2014

Jyoti Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Secondary ... on 29 July, 2021

(11) This Court has considered both the judgments rendered by two Division Benches of this Court and finds that the judgment in the case of Babu Ram is inapplicable on the facts of the case. However, the judgment in the case of Anand Singh (Supra) does observe that it is the duty of the Board to correct the mistake either inadvertent or typographical which lies in its inherent jurisdiction which is not governed by Regulation-7 of Chapter-3.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - S Chandra - Full Document

Smt. Rinki Rani vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 12 February, 2015

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.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Zahida Parveen vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 February, 2020

Noticing such facts, this Court had directed petitioner's claim to be considered and the plea of limitation was not to stand in the way of the petitioner in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad and others reported in (2014) 2 UPLBEC 1330, provided it was a bonafide case of correction in the name.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Kabir Jaiswal vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 2 December, 2020

The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education and Others; 2014 (3) ADJ, 443 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others; 2019(9) ADJ, 664. He thus argues that the Board is adopting a hyper technical approach in rejecting the request whereas the petitioner has taken all steps to announce to the world through the Gazette Notification. The petitioner also states that he shall not take any benefit only on account of change of name other than the rights to which the petitioner is entitled. He further argues that the identity of the person remains the same, only the petitioner intends to change the first name and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 6 - P Bhatia - Full Document

State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Md. Sameer Rao And 3 Others on 13 February, 2025

26. As far as the limitation of 3 years provided under Regulation 7 is concerned, reference to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education and others: 2014 (3) ADJ 443 (DB) may be made. The Division Bench, while dealing with the limitation of three years as regards correction, held that rejection for correcting the name on the ground of delay is unsustainable as the claim was found to be bona fide. However, a careful examination of the said judgment would show that the nature of correction in the light of Regulation 7 was examined by this Court and the same are confined to some inadvertent clerical error or omission in the name of the candidate or the name of his parents. Same is altogether different from a situation where completely new name is sought to be acquired and then request is made for issuance of new certificate incorporating said name.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 May, 2022

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 by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Singh Vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad, reported in 2014 (3) ADJ 443. The Court while holding that the provisions of limitation in regard to the change in date of birth was imperative held thus:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M R Chauhan - Full Document

Vikas Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 24 March, 2023

4. Per contra, Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has relied on Part II B, Chapter III Regulation 7 framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 2021 as amended in 2013 and submits that an application for correct of date of birth in the High School certificate has to be given within three years from the date of issuance of the certificate by the Board. In this case, the application to the Board has been given on prescribed format by the petitioner on 26.12.2020 which is admittedly after expiry of three years of period. Therefore, no order has been passed by the Board, nor could have been passed as the Board is not authorised to pass any order after lapse of three years stipulated period. Law in this regard has been settled by a Division Bench of this court in Anand Singh vs. U.P. Board of Secondary Education and others (2014)3 ADJ 443 (DB). Relevant part of the judgment in the case of Anand Singh is extracted below :
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K S Pawar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next