(1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Opposite party no.2 Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Uttar Pradesh.
(3) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a regular student of Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad, and took the examination of High School in the year 2011. But when she received her Marksheet and Transfer Certificate it was found that her date of birth was incorrectly shown as 15.07.1995 in place of correct date of birth which is 21.01.1996 as per Transfer Certificate /Schools record. The petitioner approached the Principal of Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad, praying for correction of her date of birth but in the meantime, she had completed B.Sc. in 2016 and was admitted for MBBS in AIIMS Delhi. The Principal assured her that he will get corrected her date of birth in High School Certificate-cum-Marksheet as two dates of birth have been mentioned in High School Certificate and in Transfer Certificate. The Opposite party no.4 the Principal of Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad, wrote to the opposite party no.2 on 20.09.2016 for correction of date of birth of the petitioner as per school record but no action was taken.
(4) Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.222212 (M/S) of 2017 (Jyoti Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Others), this Court disposed of the petition on 18.09.2017 with a direction to the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the Secretary alongwith all necessary documents and the Secretary should consider the case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Anand Singh Vs. State of U.P. Secondary Education and Others reported in 2014 (2) U.P.L.E.B.C. 1330, the Court left it open for the Authorities concerned to call for the reports and documents from District Authorities of the Education Department and also from the School concerned while passing the order on the representation of the petitioner.
(5) The petitioner approached to the Opposite party no.2 again alongwith all necessary documents and the opposite party no.2 called for a report from the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, who submitted his report on 19.03.2018 saying that the date of birth of the petitioner according to the Transfer Certificate issued by Ram Pati Balbhadra Prasad Shukla, (R.P.B.P.), Junior High School, Milkipur, Faizabad, for Classes VII and VIII shows her date of birth as 21.01.1996 whereas the High School Certificate and Marksheet shows her date of birth as 15.07.1995.
(6) The opposite party no.2 also called for the Educational record of her School i.e. Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad and thereafter passed the impugned order by observing that he had gone through the record produced by Ram Pati Balbhadra Prasad Shukla, (R.P.B.P.), J.H.S., Milkipur, Faizabad, wherein at the stage of admission of the petitioner initially in Class VII her date of birth was correctly mentioned. The student's Attendance Register and the Registration as per the hand written data made available for her showed some over writing. On the same the date of birth mentioned in the School records was 10.07.1996 (15.07.1995) and therefore, her application Form submitted to the Board for appearing Class X in examination also mentioned incorrect date of birth.
(7) This Court has carefully perused the impugned order and finds that it is evident therefrom that as per Transfer Certificate issued by the Ram Pati Balbhadra Prasad Shukla (R.P.B.P.) Junior High School, Milkipur, Faizabad for Classes VII and VIII the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 20.01.1996. But at the time of filling up of her form the details of the petitioner were incorrectly filled by the Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad, as a result her date of birth was incorrectly shown in her High School Certificate and Marksheet.
(8) The Opposite party no.2 has referred to Regulation-7 of Chapter-III of the Regulations attached to the Intermediate Education Act to say that the Secretary of the Board could make correction in the Certificate/Marksheet of a candidate if such mistake was inadvertent or a typographical error or a mistake in printing the Certificate but such correction could be done only if the application was moved within two years of issuance of such Certificate or Marksheet. In the case of the petitioner, the application was moved for the first time, in 2016 whereas the High School Certificate and Marksheet were issued in the year 2011 much beyond the limitation mentioned in the Regulation -7 of Chapter 3 and therefore the opposite party no.2 refused to correct the date of birth of the petitioner.
(9) With regard to the judgment of the Division Bench referred to by this Court i.e. Anand Singh Vs. State of U.P. Board Secondary Education and others (Supra), the opposite party no.2 has observed in his order dated 12.09.2018 that it related to only a typographical error or an error in the name of the candidate or his parents etc. but no in the case of correction of date of birth, therefore, the said case was not applicable to the petitioner.
(10) Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment rendered in Anand Singh (Supra) and also a copy of order passed by another Division Bench in Special Appeal No.1202 of 2010 (Babu Ram and Others Vs. State of U.P. and another). In Anand Singh Vs. State of U.P. Secondary Education and Others reported in 2014 (2) U.P.L.E.B.C. 1330 the Division Bench observed thus:- Regulation-7 of Chapter-3 was considered by the Division Bench and it was observed that in the case of the appellant therein that date of birth in the school record was mentioned as 01.09.1949 but in the record of the Board the date of birth of the appellant was shown as 01.09.1946 and his case for correction was rejected only on the ground of limitation. The Division Bench observed that there was no mistake in the certificate of passing, the mistake was in the record Register maintained by the Board, therefore the said Regulation would not be applicable in the case of the appellant. Once the respondents have issued certificate showing date of birth of the appellant as 01.09.1949 the respondent no.2 was bound to correct the clerical mistake in the record of the Board.
(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.
(12) In the order impugned, it has been mentioned by the opposite party no.2 that the application form of the petitioner filled up as regular student of Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad, showed her date of birth as 15.07.1995. The Transfer Certificate issued from her earlier school Ram Pati Balbhadra Prasad Shukla (R.P.B.P.) Junior High School, Milkipur, Faizabad, for Classes VII and VIIIth showed her date of birth as 20.01.1996. The Scholar Register and the Admission Register of Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad, also showed her date of birth as 20.01.1996.
(13) It is evident that there was an inadvertent error in filling up of her form by the School Authorities as a student of Classes IX or Xth is an adolescent and not competent or mature enough to correctly fill up the form. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that it is always the teachers who fill up the form, and the students mostly sign on the dotted line. A student like the petitioner who may have been only 14 years of age at the time of filling up of her form for High School may have believed that whatever her teacher wrote in her application form was correct and may have signed without verifying the Date of Birth details from the Scholar Register maintained in her school on the basis of Transfer Certificate is issued by the Junior High School from which she passed her Classes VII and VIII.
(14) In such a case the observations made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Akash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2016 (3) Alld. L.J 146, squarely apply. This Court in Akash Sharma (Supra) was considering a similar case where the writ petitioner was seeking a correction in the Date of Birth as printed in the High School pass Certificate-Cum-Marksheet which had been incorrectly shown. The Transfer Certificate and Character Certificate issued by the School had shown his Date of Birth correctly. The petitioner had thereafter passed his Intermediate from a different Inter College and took his Transfer Certificate from the said College also which showed his correct date of birth. The Institution from where the petitioner appeared in High School Examination had certified that in the School records the correct date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded as of the year 1993 and due to some mistake it was printed in the High School Certificate as 1990. The petitioner applied for correction under Regulation-7 Chapter-3 of the Regulation framed under the Intermediate Education Act and where a limitation of three years was provided for moving such application. The writ petitioner had admittedly moved the application after about five years from the date of issuance of High School Certificate. Consequently, his application was rejected by the Secretary of the Board. The Court observed in Paragraphs-11 to 19 of the said judgment as follows:-
"(11) A bare reading of above Regulation indicates that the clerical mistake occurring in the certificate, issued by the High School and Intermediate Education Board U.P. is rectifiable provided the candidate applies for its correction within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the certificate.
(12) It is important to note that it is not the case of any party that the mistake of date of birth appearing in the High School Certificate of the petitioner had occurred due to any mistake on the part of the petitioner or that his correct date of birth is not 01.01.93 as appears in the records of the School/College, meaning thereby the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.93 and not 01.01.90 as mentioned in the High School Certificate.
(13) An authority vested with the jurisdiction to issue a certificate and to maintain record of it has inherent power to rectify the mistake, if any, that may occur in the certificate so issued provide the mistake is genuine and the person concern has no role attached to it. Therefore, any mistake of a clerical nature accruing in the certificates can be rectified on the application of the candidate concern or even by the authority concern in suo motu exercise of its inherent power whenever the mistake comes to its notice. In other words, any mistake in the High School Certificate can always be rectified either on an application by the person concern or by the authority/Board itself in suo- motu exercise of its inherent power.
The limitation of moving an application for rectification of the mistake of a clerical nature appearing in the High School Certificate is for the candidates and not for the Board to take suo-motu action in exercise of inherent power.
(14) The law of limitation is founded on public policy so as to limit the life span of a litigation or the legal remedy. It does not aims to defeat the rights of the parties. In the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy,; (1998) 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court of India observed if the remedy availed by the party who has been wronged does not smack of malafides or is not by way of dilatory tactics, the Courts must show utmost consideration to the suitor. In other words, a bonafide delay may not by itself be treated as sufficient to debar the remedy particularly where the record exfacie shows miscarriage of justice.
(16) In the instant case, there is no dispute that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1993 and that in the High School Certificate it has been incorrectly mentioned as 01.01.90.
(17) The limitation of two years provided in applying for rectification of the certificate is applicable to the candidates but there is no limitation for the Board to exercise its inherent power to correct the certificate issued by it. Thus, the Board certainly in exercise of its suo motu inherent power is authorised to correct a clerical mistake or error appearing in the High School Certificate once it is brought to its notice. It is incumbent duty of the Board to ensure that the certificates issued by it are correct and does not suffer from any error or mistake. Therefore, in order to put its records straight, the Board is under an obligation to correct all certificates issued by it irrespective of the limitation placed under Regulation-7 of Chapter-III of the Regulation in exercise of its inherent power in the particular facts and circumstances of the each case. The law of limitation cannot be pressed into service by the Board while exercising its inherent power so as to defeat the right of the petitioner to have his incorrect date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate rectified.
(18) The Regional Secretary of the Board has simply rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, he failed in discharge the pious obligation to rectify the mistake occurring in the public record which are supposed to maintain correctly.
(19) Accordingly, even if the application of the petitioner was beleted the Board ought to have corrected the mistake in exercise of suo-motto jurisdiction. The Regional Secretary of the Board has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in him in law in passing the order dated 21.10.2014..................."
(15) The opposite party no.2 has taken a hyper technical view and rejected the application of the petitioner only on ground of limitation without appreciating and exercising inherent jurisdiction.
(16) The order impugned is quashed and the opposite party no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order correcting the date of birth of the petitioner in her High School Certificate and Marksheet in accordance with the report submitted by the opposite party nos.3 and 4 from 15.07.1995 to 21.01.1996 and issue a corrected High School Marksheet and Certificate within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.
(17) The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 PAL