* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR + WRIT PETITION No. 5659 of 2014 % 27.12.2014 Between:
# Gogineni Gnana Jyothi, @ Gogineni Gnana Jyothieswar, W/o.Eswar Rao, aged about 46 years,R/o.Flat No.303, ARunodaya Apartments, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-29.
... Petitioner AND $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Commissioner and Director of School Education, Lakdi-ka-pol, Hyderabad and others .... Respondents.
! Counsel for Petitioner : MR. B.V. SUBBAIAH For MR. KRUPACHAND GOGINENI ^ Counsel for Respondents : GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2013(5) ALD 332 (DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 5659 of 2014 BETWEEN Gogineni Gnana Jyothi AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Director of School Education, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. B.V. SUBBAIAH For MR. KRUPACHAND GOGINENI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner questions the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 06.09.2013 whereby the request of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth in the SSC Records and certificate was rejected on the ground that the said request was not made within three years as required under G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 31.12.1992.
2. Petitioner states in the affidavit that she completed IX and X classes at Z.P. High School, Nidubrolu in the year 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively. As per the school records, her date of birth is recorded as 01.08.1968. However, in X class marks memo issued by the Board of Secondary Education, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 01.08.1966. Petitioner, however, supports her case by placing reliance upon transfer certificates issued by various schools viz. 1) Primary School, Nidubrolu, for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 relating to classes IV and V, 2) Z.P. High School, Jandrapet, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District, for the years 1978-81 relating to classes VI to VIII, and 3) Z.P. High School, Nidubrolu, for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 relating to Classes IX and X. Petitioner submits that all the school records right from Primary Level to High School Level mention her date of birth as 01.08.1968 including the college records in P.B.N. College, Nidubrolu, where she studied intermediate from 1983-85 but her date of birth is wrongly printed only in the Secondary School Certificate as 01.08.1966.
3. Alleging that the said certificate contains typographical mistake regarding date of birth, the father of the petitioner made representations before the school authorities on 23.12.1983 ad 05.08.1989. However, the representation before the Headmaster and the Deputy Educational Officer, Bapatla was made only on 14.10.2012. The Headmaster of the High School as well as the Deputy Educational Officer stated to have recommended petitioner’s case after verifying the school records by pointing out that the entry in the SSC Certificate regarding date of birth may be a clerical mistake in the Board of Secondary Education. Petitioner states that all the schools where she studied are recognized schools under A.P. Education Act and the petitioner’s grievance is genuine. However, under the impugned order dated 06.09.2013 the Commissioner and the Director of School Education rejected petitioner’s request. Hence, the present writ petition is filed alleging that it is not a mistake of the candidate or her parent but is that of the SSC Board in not noting the correct date of birth as per the school records. Petitioner also submits that the basis of another ground in the impugned order, that the request was made after thirty years of petitioner passing SSC, is also factually incorrect as petitioner’s father already made representations for correction of date of birth before the Headmaster, High School.
4. In support of the claim of the petitioner, reliance is placed upon judgment of the learned single judge of this court in W.P.No.17793 of 2010, dated 27.07.2010, where a case of a similar mistake in noting the correct date of birth was sought to be corrected and in spite of recommendation in favour of the petitioner therein by the Deputy Educational Officer, Vikarabad and the District Educational Officer, R.R. District, the Commissioner declined to accept the request for correction. It is submitted that this Court already considered G.O.Ms.No.430, Education (EE.I) Department, dated 31.12.1982 in the said decision and held that the mistakes in furnishing the particulars of date of birth at the time of entry into educational institution and where the educational institutions have correctly recorded the date of birth, stand of a different footing and accordingly, the said writ petition was allowed directing the Commissioner to correct the date of birth.
The said order of learned Single Judge was also confirmed in W.A.No.1021 of 2010, dated 30.11.2010.
5. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing that the Deputy Educational Officer, Bapatla had recommended the case of the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner. It is, however, stated that the proposals submitted by the District Educational Officer, Guntur was not accepted by the Commissioner in terms of the time limit prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992.
6. At the request of this court, learned Government Pleader has also produced set of various G.Os on the subject beginning with G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education Department dated 06.05.1961, where the procedure for seeking correction of date of birth in a completed Secondary School Certificate was set out. However, the said procedure relates to a case where date of birth is sought to be corrected on the basis of birth register and where an erroneous date of birth is recorded in the educational records including the SSC Certificate. Under the aforesaid G.O., a time limit of two years was prescribed within which ‘ordinarily’ a claim would be entertained as per clause 6 of the said G.O. The said G.O. underwent an amendment under G.O.Ms.No.898 Education (E) Department dated 29.06.1977 clarifying that such applications would ordinarily be entertained only within two years from the date of completion of the course. The said G.O. underwent further amendment under G.O.Ms.No.77 Education (E.E.I) Department dated 23.02.1988 where the Government delegated its power for correction to the Director of School Education and the District Educational Officer for speedy finalization of cases and they were empowered to correct the date whenever court judgments or decrees are involved and on the basis of the report of the Collector, where recommendations were made on the basis of unimpeachable evidence. Thereafter, another G.O., was issued, being G.O.Ms.No.170 Education (SE) Department dated 30.04.1991, where the Director of School Education was empowered to take effect to the corrections in respect of date of birth in a Completed Secondary School Leaving Certificate, Higher Secondary Certificate, or Higher Secondary (Multipurpose) Certificate. Lastly, the said G.O. was further amended by G.O.Ms.No.430 (Education EE.1.) Department dated 31.12.1992, which provides that no application for such correction/alteration of date of birth in the said completed certificates shall be entertained after a period of three years from the date of completion of the said course. It is on the basis of the last of the G.Os, referred to above, that the impugned order came to be passed.
7. Learned Government Pleader also placed before the court decision of the Division Bench of this court in K. SIVA REDDY
[1]
v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH , wherein this court held that correction of date of birth in case of employees serving the State Government has to be made by approaching the competent civil Court by interpreting A.P. Public Employment (Regarding an Alteration of Date Of Birth) Rules, 1984. That decision, however, is obviously relating to service matter where an in-service candidate under the State Government seeks correction of date of birth and the said Rules specifically provides the procedure thereof. The same obviously does not apply to the case of the petitioner herein as she is not an employee of the State Government.
8. Learned Government Pleader also brought to my notice judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.26503 of 2014 dated 17.09.2014 where a request of similar nature was allowed. However, there is neither any discussion in the judgment with regard to the rule position under the G.Os. aforesaid nor the order of the Division Bench, referred to above, was brought to the notice of his Lordship. It appears that the Government of A.P. had filed W.A.No.1446 of 2014 and a Division Bench has suspended the operation of the order in the said writ petition.
9. The facts of the present case, in my view, stand on a different footing inasmuch as a mistake appears to have occurred at the SSC Board, as the petitioner’s school certificates throughout mentions the correct date of birth.
The said mistake, which occurred in the SSC Board, is apparently a clerical or typographical mistake and when the said mistake is brought to the notice of the competent authority, it ought to have corrected the said mistake itself, inasmuch as the petitioner would be shown older by two years if the date as per the SSC Certificate is to be accepted. The date of birth of the petitioner from primary level to class X, having been correctly recorded, mere recording of erroneous date by the SSC Board in its record obviously cannot put the petitioner to a serious prejudice.
The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1021 of 2010, referred to above, distinguished G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 31.12.1992 as the said mistake cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The parameters under the said G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992, therefore, are not attracted as held by the Division Bench. In my view, therefore, the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such, is required to be followed in this case also.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, respondent No.1, shall verify the school records of the petitioner from primary level to class X and on being satisfied, pass appropriate orders for correction of SSC Records including the SSC Certificate of the petitioner by showing the correct date of birth in confirmity with the school education records of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 27, 2014 LMV
[1] 2013(5) ALD 332 (DB)