High Court

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He submits that though the court has sought explicit instructions in terms of the order dated 17.4.2025, however, the written instructions which have been provided dated 20.5.2025, a copy of which has been provided to the court for its perusal and the same is taken on record, it does not answer the query of the court. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel submits that he requires a day's time to clarify the aforesaid position regarding the registration which has been brought on record by the institution alongwith its counter affidavit and also finds mention in the written instructions filed on behalf of the respondent State authorities. Put up this case on 28.5.2025, as fresh."

6. This Court also issued notice to respondent no.4 institution. Shri Shafeequi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the institution has categorically stated that as per record of the institution, the date of birth of the petitioner was

18.9.1997. He has relied upon a registration card issued by the Board wherein the said date is incorporated. It is also urged that since the record pertains to the year 2009-2010, hence they are in the mutilated state and whatever records are available, the same can be cross checked from the Board itself. However, as far as the institution is concerned, the date of birth of the petitioner is

18.9.1997. which was also verified from the previous institution from where the petitioner had taken education (i.e. Sanatan Dharma Vidya Mandir Junior High School).

7. The learned Standing Counsel has provided the copy the written instructions dated 25.5.2025 issued under the signatures of Additional Secretary of the U.P. Intermediate Board wherein they have annexed the Annexure No.2 which is a letter dated 1.5.2025 written by the Secretary and addressed to the Additional Secretary indicating that in terms of the instructions sought by the Court in the instant writ petition, as per the records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 18.9.1997, A copy of the registration card issued by the Board has also been annexed with the said written instructions wherein prima facie, the date of birth of the petitioner appears to be 18.9.1997.

8. Noticing the aforesaid, this Court by means of the order dated 26.5.2025, had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek clear instructions regarding the said date of birth so that there may not be any doubt left in future and furtherance thereof, another copy of the written instructions dated 27.5.2025 has been provided to the Court, which is also taken on record.

9. In terms of the latest instructions, it has been indicated that there might be some inadvertent error while feeding the data in the data bank relating to the institution. Taking note of the aforesaid stand as well as the fact that the institution i.e. respondent no.4 has verified and has supported the date of birth of the petitioner to be 18.9.1997 which as per the registration card issued by the Board itself also incorporates the same date of birth. It is not the stand of the respondent State that the registration card which has been brought on record by the institution is forged or that there was any role of the petitioner in getting an incorrect date of birth incorporated.

10. In the light of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the rejection of the representation moved by the petitioner was not justified as the clear stand of the State indicates that the date of birth as per their own record is also 18.9.1997 and it appears that while feeding the data, an incorrect date of birth has been entered.

11. For the aforesaid reason, the order dated

26.7.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to carry on the necessary correction in the date of birth in the educational certificates/ marksheets of the petitioner as 18.9.1997 and issue the corrected marksheets/ certificates within a period of six weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent no.2.

12. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Shukla

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He submits that though the court has sought explicit instructions in terms of the order dated 17.4.2025, however, the written instructions which have been provided dated 20.5.2025, a copy of which has been provided to the court for its perusal and the same is taken on record, it does not answer the query of the court. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel submits that he requires a day's time to clarify the aforesaid position regarding the registration which has been brought on record by the institution alongwith its counter affidavit and also finds mention in the written instructions filed on behalf of the respondent State authorities. Put up this case on 28.5.2025, as fresh."

6. This Court also issued notice to respondent no.4 institution. Shri Shafeequi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the institution has categorically stated that as per record of the institution, the date of birth of the petitioner was

18.9.1997. He has relied upon a registration card issued by the Board wherein the said date is incorporated. It is also urged that since the record pertains to the year 2009-2010, hence they are in the mutilated state and whatever records are available, the same can be cross checked from the Board itself. However, as far as the institution is concerned, the date of birth of the petitioner is

18.9.1997. which was also verified from the previous institution from where the petitioner had taken education (i.e. Sanatan Dharma Vidya Mandir Junior High School).

7. The learned Standing Counsel has provided the copy the written instructions dated 25.5.2025 issued under the signatures of Additional Secretary of the U.P. Intermediate Board wherein they have annexed the Annexure No.2 which is a letter dated 1.5.2025 written by the Secretary and addressed to the Additional Secretary indicating that in terms of the instructions sought by the Court in the instant writ petition, as per the records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 18.9.1997, A copy of the registration card issued by the Board has also been annexed with the said written instructions wherein prima facie, the date of birth of the petitioner appears to be 18.9.1997.

8. Noticing the aforesaid, this Court by means of the order dated 26.5.2025, had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek clear instructions regarding the said date of birth so that there may not be any doubt left in future and furtherance thereof, another copy of the written instructions dated 27.5.2025 has been provided to the Court, which is also taken on record.

9. In terms of the latest instructions, it has been indicated that there might be some inadvertent error while feeding the data in the data bank relating to the institution. Taking note of the aforesaid stand as well as the fact that the institution i.e. respondent no.4 has verified and has supported the date of birth of the petitioner to be 18.9.1997 which as per the registration card issued by the Board itself also incorporates the same date of birth. It is not the stand of the respondent State that the registration card which has been brought on record by the institution is forged or that there was any role of the petitioner in getting an incorrect date of birth incorporated.

10. In the light of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the rejection of the representation moved by the petitioner was not justified as the clear stand of the State indicates that the date of birth as per their own record is also 18.9.1997 and it appears that while feeding the data, an incorrect date of birth has been entered.

11. For the aforesaid reason, the order dated

26.7.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to carry on the necessary correction in the date of birth in the educational certificates/ marksheets of the petitioner as 18.9.1997 and issue the corrected marksheets/ certificates within a period of six weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent no.2.

12. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Shukla