Radhey Shyam v. The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Board , Allahabad and another) and AIR
Case Details
WP(C) 4979/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a dir ection to the respondents to correct his date of birth recorded in the service b ook and other service records, as 01.03.1957 instead of 01.03.1954. The petitio ner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 4, i.e. Board of Secon dary Education, Assam (SEBA), to correct the date of his birth recorded in the H SLC Admit card and HSLC certificate. 2. According to the petitioner, his date of birth, on the basis of his scho ol records, is 01.03.1957 and not 01.03.1954 as recorded in the HSLC certificate and the service book of the petitioner. In this connection, the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-2 certificate, dated 29.02.2004, issued by the Head master of the school in which the petitioner had studied. According to the peti tioner, he had prayed for correction of his date of birth in the Admit card by A nnxure-3 application, dated 15.05.1972, followed by Annexure-5 application, date d 17.06.1978, both addressed to the Headmaster of the school in which the petiti oner had studied. Even if these two documents are taken on their face value, th en also the same being addressed to the Headmaster of the school, the respondent No. 4, who had issued the HSLC Admit card and HSLC certificate, had no occasion to entertain the said applications as they were not addressed to the authority
Legal Reasoning
of SEBA. 3. I have heard Mr. P.B. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I h ave also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Standing counsel, SEBA, and Mr. B. Chou dhury, learned Standing counsel, Education, Assam. 4. While the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the de cisions of the Allahabad High Court and Jharkhand High Court, reported in AIR 19 92 ALLAHABAD 60 (Radhey Shyam vs. The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Board , Allahabad and another) and AIR 2007 JHARKHAND 16 (Anand Kumar Singh v. Princip al, Central School and ors), has submitted that the petitioner having made the a foresaid applications to the school authority way back in the year 1972 and 1978 , the prayer for correction of the date of birth cannot be defeated on the groun d of limitation. He also submits that even otherwise also the case of the petit ioner is required to be considered in terms of the school certificate issued to the petitioner, which is of 2004 and, to be precise, dated 27.02.2004. 5. Countering the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. C hutia, learned Standing counsel, SEBA, submits that the petitioner having not ma de any application to the SEBA authority for correction of the age, recorded in the Admit card and HSLC certificate, he cannot now pray for such change of date of his birth at the fag end of his service career. Mr. T. C. Chutia places reli ance to the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 (State of U. P. and another vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya) and (2003) 12 SCC 408 (Board of Second ary Education of Assam vs. Md. Sarifuz Zaman and others). 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the entire materials on recor d. My findings and conclusions are as follows: 7. Admittedly, at the time of appearing in the HSLC examination, in the doc uments submitted by the petitioner and/or his guardian, his age was shown as 18 years. He appeared in the HSLC examination in 1972 and was issued with the HSLC certificate showing his age as 18 years as on 01.03.1972. Based on that his da te of birth is 01.03.1954 and not 01.03.1957 as has been claimed in the writ pet ition. The petitioner has contended that since he had made prayer to the Headma 8. ster of the school on 15.05.1972 and, again on 17.06.1978, his prayer for change of his date of birth ought to have been accepted. If the Headmaster of the sai d school did not take any action on the basis of the application submitted on 15 .05.1972 followed by the one submitted on 17.06.1972, the petitioner ought to ha ve approached the SEBA authority instead of waiting for all these years and then to approach this Court at the fag end of his service career. Be it stated here that the petitioner’s date of superannuation is 28.02.2014. 9. As per the Circular letter dated 29.09.1975 issued by the SEBA, there is time limit of three years for correction of age, name, title etc. in the releva nt documents pertaining to HSLC examination from the date of commencement of the examination. In the said Circular, it has been specifically provided that on e xpiry of the time limit, no application for such correction will be admitted. A s per the said Circular, along with the application for correction is also requi red to furnish an amount of Rs. 25/- for processing the matter, but nothing of t he sort was done by the petitioner and, now, after 38 years of passing HSLC exam ination in 1972, his has filed the instant writ petition for direction to the re spondents, including the SEBA, to correct the date of his birth in the HSLC cert ificate and other relevant documents, such as his service book. Respondent No. 4 has also enclosed relevant documents along with affidav 10. it, more particularly the relevant entries pertaining to HSLC examination showin g the age of the petitioner as 18 years. On the basis of such entries, as had b een furnished by the petitioner, the Admit card was issued to the petitioner fol lowed by the HSLC certificate recording the age and/or date of birth of the peti tioner in the relevant documents. This position cannot be allowed to be altered after 38 years.
Legal Reasoning
11. The decisions on which Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, are of no help to the case of the petitioner. In both the decisions, noticing the fact the date of the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded wrongly in the High School certificate by mistake and that applic ation was made within the reasonable period of time, direction was issued for ne cessary corrections. Unlike the said cases, in the instant case, the petitioner
Decision
has filed the writ petition after 38 years of passing HSLC examination. 12. In Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (supra), the Apex Court has held that date of b irth, as recorded in the service book, is decisive and the correction thereof ca n be sought only in accordance with the procedure prescribed and within the time fixed under the Rules or Orders, or within the reasonable time in absence of an y Rule or Orders. In the instant case, correction of the petitioner’s date of b irth in the HSLC certificate has been sought for after 38 years. In Md. Sarifuz Zaman and others (supra), which is a case from Assam and 13. was filed by the SEBA, the Apex Court has upheld the prescription of three years period for seeking correction of date of birth, etc., in the HSLC certificate. 14. Above being the position, the prayer made in this writ petition cannot be a llowed, which, if allowed, will clothe the petitioner with the right to continue in service for another three years. 15. as to costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without, however, any order