The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 13232 of 2024 Bholanath Rout ..... Board of Secondary Education, Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Petitioner Ms. K.R. Choudhury, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 1) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 28.01.2025 Order No. 13 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that she may be permitted to correct the description of Opp. Party No. 1 in Court. Such prayer is allowed.
Legal Reasoning
by this Court in the case of Rajkishore Patra Vs. State of Odisha &
Arguments
3. Heard Ms. K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 1 along with Mr. B.K. Mohanty. 4. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the facts and under the circumstances stated above, the Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this WRIT application and issue Rule NISI calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned Order under ANNEXURE- 5series shall not be set aside / quashed being issued contravening Page 1 of 6. principles of Natural justice as well as the provisions under the Constitution of India; And if the O.P. fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule absolute by issuing a WRIT in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned ANNEXURE- 5series;"; a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to rectify the school record of the petitioner's daughter as per the Certificate of Birth within a stipulated time by correctly recording her DOB (date of birth) as 29.8.2009 and father's name as Bholanath Rout and mother's name as Lili Rout. b) Issue/direction(s) order(s) deemed fit in the any fact and circumstances of the case. And for which act of your kindness, the petitioner shall remain ever pray as in duty bound.” 5. It is contended that Petitioner’s daughter Pravati Rout when was admitted in the School, a wrong was committed by the Person who made such admission with regard to her Date of Birth as well as name of her Parents. Petitioner when came across such wrong committed with regard to the Date of Birth of his daughter and the parents name, he moved the authority concerned seeking such correction of the Date of Birth of his daughter as well as her Parents’ name. 5.1. Even though as per notification issued in that regard on 03.04.2024, such correction of the Date of Birth of the Petitioner’s daughter as well as her parents’ name was permissible, but the same when was not implemented, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 10267 of 2024 with the following prayer:- “In the facts and under the circumstances stated above, the Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this WRIT application and issue; Page 2 of 6. a) Issue a writ in the Opposite the nature of Mandamus directing Parties to implement notification dtd.3/4/24 & rectify the inadvertent wrong entries in the school record of the petitioner's daughter within a stipulated time by correctly recording her DOB (date of birth) as 29.8.2009 and father's name as Bholanath Rout and mother's name as Lili Rout. b) Issue any appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 5.2. It is contended that this Court vide order dtd.25.04.2024 under Annexure-4 disposed of the writ petition inter alia directing the Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the prayer of the Petitioner for correction of the Date of Birth of his daughter as well as her Parents’ name. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the order passed by this Court and the admitted wrong with regard to the recording of Date of Birth as well as Parent’s name of his daughter, such prayer was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.14.05.2024 under Annexure-5 series. 5.3. It is contended that the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in view of the Judgment passed
Decision
Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 2499 of 2022) disposed of on 29.11.2023. This Court in the concluding Para has held as follows:- “5.2. Therefore, in view of such position and the fact that in the school admission register of both Sradhapur U.P. & M.E. School the date of birth of the Petitioner is recorded as 26.05.1975 and the said fact was also enquired and admitted by the B.E.O., Bhograi with necessary correction of the date of birth in the school admission register of Opp. Party No. 5. This Court placing reliance on the decision Jigya Yadav as cited Page 3 of 6. supra is of the view that the date of birth is required to be corrected by the authorities of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. While holding so, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim so issued vide letter dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to issue a fresh HSC pass certificate in favour of the Petitioner by recording his date of birth as 26.05.1975. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by Opp. Party No. 3 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” 5.4. It is contended that since the date of birth of the Petitioner’s daughter as well as her parents name has been wrongly recorded and Petitioner’s daughter prior to her appearing the Board examination, approached the authority seeking the correction, the same should have been allowed instead of rejecting the same on a technical ground. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Board on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since no supporting materials could be produced by the Petitioner with regard to the change as prayed for, the same was considered and rejected vide the impugned order. It is also contended that as per the Board’s Regulation such correction of date of birth is not permissible unless it is of the nature of clerical error or printing mistake and such application for correction of the date of birth should be made within three (3) years of the passing the examination. 6.1. Similarly, correction of change of name and surname cannot be allowed unless it is a clerical error or printing mistake. Similarly, no Page 4 of 6. such claim shall be entertained unless it is sent through the head of the Institution. Regulation 39 & 40 of the Boards’ Regulation reads as follows:- “39. Date of Birth: The date of birth once entered in the Board's records can not be changed unless it is of the nature of clerical error or printing mistake. Application for the correction of the date of birth should be made within three years of passing the examination. No change in date of birth recorded shall be made unless the application for correction is received through the head of the institution concerned within three years of passing the examination" (emphasis supplied) "40. Change of Name and Surname: No change in the name or surname of any candidate who has or who is registered to appear at the High School Certificate Examination shall be allowed except in cases of clerical error or printing mistake. No application for correction shall be entertained unless it is sent through the head of the institution is concerned. The Secretary shall make necessary correction in the Boards records after the correction is approved by the Examination Committee. The original certificate shall be cancelled and retained when a corrected certificate is issued." (emphasis supplied) 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that in the birth certificate issued under Annexure-1, date of birth of the Petitioner’s daughter has been recorded as 29.08.2009 with his fathers’ name as Bholanath Rout (present Petitioner) and mothers’ name as Lili Rout. Document available under Annexure-1 is a public document and Petitioner while seeking correction of the Date of Birth of his Page 5 of 6. daughter as well as her Parents name, provided the birth certificate issued under Annexure-1 as well as the affidavit available under Annexure-2 series. 7.1. Since Annexure-1 is a public document showing the date of birth of the Petitioners’ daughter as 29.08.2009 and her parents name as Bholanath Rout and Lili Rout, the same should not have been overlooked by the authorities of the Board while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim. Similarly in the case in hand, Petitioner’s daughter has not yet appeared the 10th Board examination. 7.2. Considering the materials placed, it is the view of this Court that the claim made by the Petitioner is a genuine one and comes under the category of Exceptional Circumstances. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra), this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.14.05.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-5. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to correct the date of birth as well as the parents’ name of the Petitioner’s daughter in terms of Annexure-1 forthwith in the concerned record. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:08:59 Page 6 of 6.