# Akash Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-16
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 20863 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akash-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43307
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate-Education Act 1921,
Chapter-III-Regulation-7-Rectification
of date of birth-petitioner appeared in
High
School
examination
2007-in
certificates cum mark sheet date of birth
recorded 01.01.90-while school record
show 01.01.93-rejected on time barred
ground-held-illegal-limitation is provided
for candidate-and not for authorities
concern-by exercising inherent powersuch clerical mistake ought to have
corrected-order impugned base upon
without application of mind-quashed.
Held: Para-19
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.
Case Law discussed:
(1998) 7 SCC 123

## Text

3 All]
 Akash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1277
information of committing cognizable
offence punishment with imprisonment of
term for more than 7 years whether or
without fine or with death sentence and
the police officer has reason to believe
that such person has committed the said
offence
arrest
can
be
effectuated
straightway. In reference of the offence
committed, information received, it is the
police officer, who has to decide as to
what offence has been committed by the
accused and as to whether arrest is
warranted in the facts of the case, and as
to what criteria is to be adhered to. In case
any infringement of law is there in
effectuating
arrest,
the
Magistrate
concerned, before whom accused is
produced for remand, can remedy the
grievance, so raised by the arrested
person, at the point of time of according
remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C.
29. Consequently, keeping in view
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case and the factum alleged that no
credible evidence worth name is available
against petitioners, we proceed to pass an
order that investigation may go on and
petitioners shall extend full cooperation in
the investigation and shall not hamper
with the investigation, but pursuant to
impugned
FIR
dated
16.07.2015,
registered as Case Crime No. 362 of
2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
406 IPC, Police Station Partapur, District
Meerut, petitioners may not be arrested
till credible evidence is collected or till
submission of police report under Section
173 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier.
30. With these observations, writ
petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
Writ-C No. 20863 of 2015
Akash Sharma
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jeet Bahadur Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Intermediate-Education Act 1921,
Chapter-III-Regulation-7-Rectification
of date of birth-petitioner appeared in
High
School
examination
2007-in
certificates cum mark sheet date of birth
recorded 01.01.90-while school record
show 01.01.93-rejected on time barred
ground-held-illegal-limitation is provided
for candidate-and not for authorities
concern-by exercising inherent powersuch clerical mistake ought to have
corrected-order impugned base upon
without application of mind-quashed.
Held: Para-19
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.
Case Law discussed:
(1998) 7 SCC 123
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents no. 1 and 2.
1278
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. The petitioner by means of this writ
petition is seeking a direction upon the
respondents to correct his date of birth as
appearing in his High School Certificate of
2007. He has also prayed for quashing of
the order dated 21.10.2014 issued by the
Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Regional Office, Meerut, refusing
to correct his date of birth in the High
School Certificate on the ground of
limitation.
3. The facts are not in dispute that
the petitioner appeared in the High School
Examination of the year 2007 as a regular
student of Shrimad Brahmanand Inter
College,
Ramghat
Road,
Aligarh
conducted by the Board of High School
and Intermediate Education U.P.
4. The certificate-cum-mark-sheet of
the said examination was issued to the
petitioner
on
05.06.2007.
The
said
certificate mentions 01.01.90 as the date
of birth of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner after passing High
School obtained Transfer Certificate as
well as Character Certificate from the
above
institution.
Both
the
above
certificates mentions 01.01.93 as his date
of birth. The petitioner, thereafter, passed
Intermediate
from
Dharam
Samaj
College, Aligarh, and took Transfer
Certificate for the purposes of further
studies from that institution also. His date
of birth in the said certificate is again
mentioned as 01.01.1993.
6. The institution, from where the
petitioner appeared in the High School
Examination has certified that the correct
date of birth of the petitioner is
01.01.1993 as per the record of the
school.
7. In the background of the aforesaid
facts, the contention of the petitioner is
that his actual date of birth is 01.01.1993
and it also appears in the records of the
School/College as well. The Board of
High School and Intermediate Education
U.P., however, in issuing the certificatecum-mark-sheet to the petitioner has
committed
a
clerical
mistake
in
mentioning it to be 01.01.90. Therefore,
the date of birth of the petitioner as
appearing in the High School Certificate
is liable to be corrected, accordingly.
8. The application of the petitioner
for correction of his date of birth in the
High School Certificate has been rejected
on the ground that it has been moved after
more than two years of the issuance of the
certificate.
9. Learned Standing Counsel
submits as the Regulation provides for
applying for the correction of the
certificate within a period of 2 years of
the issue of the certificate, there is no
illegality in rejecting the application of
the petitioner.
10. It is not disputed that the
petitioner had not applied for correction
of his date of birth as appearing in the
High School Certificate immediately on
receipt of the certificate, rather the
application was filed on 01.10.2012, i.e.,
after about five years of issuance of the
certificate.
11. Regulation-7 of Chapter-III of
the
Regulations
framed
under
the
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
provides for a limitation of two years for
seeking correction in the High School
Certificate which has now been increased
to three years. The said Regulation as in
3 All]
 Akash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1279
existence at the relevant time reads as
under:-
fofu;e &-7
lfpo ifj"kn dh vksj ls lQy mEehnokjksa dks
ifj"kn dh ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k&i=
fofgr izi= esa nsxk vkSj ckn esa mldh izfof"V;ksa esa
dksbZ 'kqf) djsxk] c'krsZ fd izek.k&i= esa fdlh ,slh
xyr izfof"V fdlh vfopkfjr fyfidh; Hkwy ;k yksi
ds dkj.k ;k fdlh ,slh fyfidh; Hkwy ds dkj.k dh
x;h gks] tks vlko/kkuh ls ifj"kn ds Lrj ds ;k ml
laLFkk ds tgkWa ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk izkIr dh gks Lrj
ij vfHkys[k esa gks xbZ g ̈A- ;g 'kqf) lfpo }kjk
mlh fLFkfr esa dh tk ldsxh] tcfd vH;FkhZ us
lEcfU/kr ijh{kk ds izek.k&i= ifj"kn }kjk fuxZeu
dh frfFk ls nks o"k± ds vanj gh fyfidh; =qfV dh
vksj
/;ku
vkd`"V
djrs
gq;s
lEcfU/kr
iz/kkukpk;Z@dsUnz O;oLFkkid dks =qfV ds la'kks/ku
gsrq izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fn;k gks vkSj mldh izfr
iathd`r Mkd ls lfpo] ifj"kn dks Hkh izsf"kr dh gksA
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
1280
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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. Thus
the said order is quashed and the writ
petition is allowed with a direction to the
Secretary, Board of High Schools and
Intermediate Education U.P. to verify the
record and, to correct the High School
Certificate of 2007 as issued to the
petitioner by mentioning his correct date
of birth therein in exercise of his inherent
power within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
21. The writ petition is allowed but
the parties shall bear their own costs.
--------