# Chandra Kant Singh v. The Secretary, Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 161
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-01-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67121 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-kant-singh-v-the-secretary-madhyamic-shiksha-parishad-and-others-41334
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1 All] Chandra Kant Singh V. The Secretary, Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad and others

161
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67121 of 2008

Chandra Kant Singh

...Petitioner

Versus
The
Secretary,
Madhyamic
Shiksha
Parishad and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Date of
Birth-petitioner at the time of appearing
High School Exam. Given his date of birth
in registration form as 18.07.89-two
different date of birth mentioned by
Board in certificate as well as in mark
sheet-inspite of direction of writ courtrejected the representation on ground of
delay-held-Board can not be allowed to
take benefit of its own negligence for
jeopardizing
the
future
of
studentdirection for necessary correction within
week issued.

Held: Para 9

After hearing learned counsel for the
parties I am of the opinion that the
Board could not have given two different
dates of births in the Marksheet as well
as in the Certificate of High School for
the reason that the petitioner had
disclosed
his
date
of
birth
in
his
Registration form as 18.7.1989. Both the
dates of births given in the Marksheet
and Certificate are, therefore, incorrect
and the Board is duty bound to correct
the same. In such cases limitation ought
not to be raised by the Board for its own
mistake jeopardizing the future of the
students. The Board was under bounded
moral
and
legal
duty
in
the
circumstances to have corrected the
mistake committed by its staff and
officials and should not shelve the
matter on the ground of limitation to hid
its mistake/inefficiency.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. The parties agree that the writ
petition may be disposed of at this stage
as there is no factual controversy involved
in this writ petition.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ
petition for quashing the impugned order
dated 15.9.2008 passed by respondent no.
1, the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, U.P. Allahabad. He has also
prayed for a writ of mandamus directing
respondent no. 1 to correct his date of
birth in High School Mark-sheet and
Certificate as 18.7.1989.

4. The facts of the case are that the
petitioner appeared in the High School
Examination
conducted
by
the
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad,
U.P.
Allahabad in the year 2004 and in his
Registration form he had given his date of
birth
as
18.7.89.
After
obtaining
Marksheet of the High School and
Certificate he came to know that incorrect
date of birth has been recorded in
Marksheet as 18.7.1988 and in the
Certificate as 10.10.1987 whereas in both
the Marksheet and Certificate of High
School his date of birth should have been
written as 18.7.89.

5. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the date of birth
of the petitioner is 18.7.89 and the
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

marksheet and certificate of High School
of the petitioner show that two different
dates of birth other than 18.7.89 written
by the petitioner in his examination form.

6. The petitioner moved several
applications
before
the
Regional
Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad,
U.P. Varanasi for correction of his date of
birth. When no action was taken he filed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 35821 of
2008 before the High Court for a direction
to the Board to correct his date of birth in
the Marksheet and Certificate of High
School, which was disposed of vide order
dated 23.7.2008 with a direction to
respondent no. 1 to decide the grievance
of the petitioner by a reasoned and
speaking order. Pursuant to thereof, the
matter was taken up by the Secretary of
the Board which was rejected by the
Board vide order dated 15.9.2008 on the
ground
of
delay
in
moving
the
application.

7. According to the Standing
counsel 2 years limitation are provided
under Chapter III Rule 7 of the Calendar
of the Board for any correction in the date
of birth.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that due to own fault of the Board
incorrect date of birth has been endorsed
and the petitioner has only approach this
Court for correction of his date of birth
and in his Examination Form he had
given correct date of birth, therefore,
question of limitation will not apply.

9. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties I am of the opinion that the
Board could not have given two different
dates of births in the Marksheet as well as
in the Certificate of High School for the
reason that the petitioner had disclosed his
date of birth in his Registration form as
18.7.1989. Both the dates of births given
in the Marksheet and Certificate are,
therefore, incorrect and the Board is duty
bound to correct the same. In such cases
limitation ought not to be raised by the
Board for its own mistake jeopardizing
the future of the students. The Board was
under bounded moral and legal duty in the
circumstances to have corrected the
mistake committed by its staff and
officials and should not shelve the matter
on the ground of limitation to hid its
mistake/inefficiency.

10.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the Secretary
of the Board is directed to issue necessary
orders/direction for correction of the date
of birth of the petitioner in the Marksheet
and Certificate of High School forthwith
within a period of one week as 18.7.89
and thereafter instruct the college for
issuing the same to the petitioner within
two weeks.

The writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4752 of 2009

Sayeed Alam and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri J.P.S. Chauhan