# Jyoti Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 317
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-29
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 2315 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jyoti-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47180
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Inadvertent error in filling up the form by
school authorities-as form was fill up by
the teachers of the school-application for
correction rejected-hyper technical view
taken only on ground of limitationimpugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Jyoti Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317

45. For the reasons aforesaid, we are
of the view that the plea of the
detenue/petitioner that there is delay in
forwarding the petitioner's representation
on the part of the District Magistrate,
Unnao and also delay in disposal of the
petitioner's representation on the part of
respondent no.1 (Union of India), has
substance and on this count alone, the
impugned detention order is liable to be
quashed.

46. In the result, the instant Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned
order of detention dated 06.09.2020 and the
consequential orders are quashed. The
detenue/petitioner is ordered to be set at
liberty
forthwith
unless
required
in
connection with any other case.

47. For the facts and circumstances of
the case, there is no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A317
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 2315 of 2019

Jyoti Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Trinetra Shankar Pandey, Radhey Shyam
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Inadvertent error in filling up the form by
school authorities-as form was fill up by
the teachers of the school-application for
correction rejected-hyper technical view
taken only on ground of limitationimpugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jyoti Pandey Vs St. of U.P. &ors., Writ Petition
No.222212 (M/S) of 2017

2. Anand Singh Vs Sta. of U.P. Secondary
Education & ors. , 2014 (2) U.P.L.E.B.C. 1330

3.Babu Ram & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Special
Appeal No.1202 of 2010

4.Anand Singh Vs St. of U.P. Secondary
Education & ors., 2014 (2) U.P.L.E.B.C. 1330

5. Akash Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported
in 2016 (3) Alld. L.J 146

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

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

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated
12.09.2018 passed by the Opposite party
no.2 Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Uttar
Pradesh.

3. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was a regular student of Vidya
Mandir Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad,
and took the examination of High School in
the year 2011. But when she received her
Marksheet and Transfer Certificate it was
found that her date of birth was incorrectly
shown as 15.07.1995 in place of correct
date of birth which is 21.01.1996 as per
Transfer Certificate /Schools record. The
petitioner approached the Principal of
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur,
Faizabad, praying for correction of her date
of birth but in the meantime, she had
completed B.Sc. in 2016 and was admitted
for MBBS in AIIMS Delhi. The Principal
assured her that he will get corrected her
date of birth in High School Certificatecum-Marksheet as two dates of birth have
been mentioned in High School Certificate
and in Transfer Certificate. The Opposite
party no.4 the Principal of Vidya Mandir
Inter College, Milkipur, Faizabad, wrote to
the opposite party no.2 on 20.09.2016 for
correction of date of birth of the petitioner
as per school record but no action was
taken.

4.

Thereafter,
the
petitioner
approached this Court by filing a Writ
Petition No.222212 (M/S) of 2017 (Jyoti
Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Others), this
Court
disposed
of
the
petition
on
18.09.2017
with
a
direction
to
the
petitioner
to
make
appropriate
representation to the Secretary alongwith
all necessary documents and the Secretary
should consider the case of the petitioner
for correction of date of birth in the light of
the observations made by the Division
Bench of this Court in Anand Singh Vs.
State of U.P. Secondary Education and
Others reported in 2014 (2) U.P.L.E.B.C.
1330, the Court left it open for the
Authorities concerned to call for the reports
and documents from District Authorities of
the Education Department and also from
the School concerned while passing the
order
on
the
representation
of
the
petitioner.

5. The petitioner approached to the
Opposite party no.2 again alongwith all
necessary documents and the opposite party
no.2 called for a report from the District
Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, who
submitted his report on 19.03.2018 saying
that the date of birth of the petitioner
according to the Transfer Certificate issued
by Ram Pati Balbhadra Prasad Shukla,
(R.P.B.P.), Junior High School, Milkipur,
Faizabad, for Classes VII and VIII shows
her date of birth as 21.01.1996 whereas the
High School Certificate and Marksheet
shows her date of birth as 15.07.1995.

6. The opposite party no.2 also called
for the Educational record of her School i.e.
Vidya Mandir Inter College, Milkipur,
Faizabad
and
thereafter
passed
the
impugned order by observing that he had
gone through the record produced by Ram
Pati Balbhadra Prasad Shukla, (R.P.B.P.),
J.H.S., Milkipur, Faizabad, wherein at the
stage of admission of the petitioner initially
in Class VII her date of birth was correctly
mentioned.
The
student's
Attendance
Register and the Registration as per the
hand written data made available for her
showed some over writing. On the same the
date of birth mentioned in the School
records was 10.07.1996 (15.07.1995) and
therefore, her application Form submitted
to the Board for appearing Class X in
examination also mentioned incorrect date
of birth.

7. This Court has carefully perused
the impugned order and finds that it is
evident therefrom that as per Transfer
Certificate
issued
by
the
Ram
Pati
Balbhadra Prasad Shukla (R.P.B.P.) Junior
High School, Milkipur, Faizabad for
Classes VII and VIII the date of birth of the
petitioner was mentioned as 20.01.1996.
But at the time of filling up of her form the
details of the petitioner were incorrectly
filled by the Vidya Mandir Inter College,
Milkipur, Faizabad, as a result her date of
birth was incorrectly shown in her High
School Certificate and Marksheet.
8 All. Jyoti Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319

8. The Opposite party no.2 has
referred to Regulation-7 of Chapter-III of
the
Regulations
attached
to
the
Intermediate Education Act to say that the
Secretary of the Board could make
correction in the Certificate/Marksheet of a
candidate if such mistake was inadvertent
or a typographical error or a mistake in
printing the Certificate but such correction
could be done only if the application was
moved within two years of issuance of such
Certificate or Marksheet. In the case of the
petitioner, the application was moved for
the first time, in 2016 whereas the High
School Certificate and Marksheet were
issued in the year 2011 much beyond the
limitation mentioned in the Regulation -7
of Chapter 3 and therefore the opposite
party no.2 refused to correct the date of
birth of the petitioner.

9. With regard to the judgment of the
Division Bench referred to by this Court
i.e. Anand Singh Vs. State of U.P. Board
Secondary
Education
and
others
(Supra), the opposite party no.2 has
observed in his order dated 12.09.2018 that
it related to only a typographical error or an
error in the name of the candidate or his
parents etc. but no in the case of correction
of date of birth, therefore, the said case was
not applicable to the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has produced a copy of the judgment
rendered in Anand Singh (Supra) and also a
copy of order passed by another Division
Bench in Special Appeal No.1202 of 2010
(Babu Ram and Others Vs. State of U.P.
and another). In Anand Singh Vs. State
of U.P. Secondary Education and Others
reported in 2014 (2) U.P.L.E.B.C. 1330
the
Division
Bench
observed
thus:-
Regulation-7 of Chapter-3 was considered
by the Division Bench and it was observed
that in the case of the appellant therein that
date of birth in the school record was
mentioned as 01.09.1949 but in the record
of the Board the date of birth of the
appellant was shown as 01.09.1946 and his
case for correction was rejected only on the
ground of limitation. The Division Bench
observed that there was no mistake in the
certificate of passing, the mistake was in
the record Register maintained by the
Board, therefore the said Regulation would
not be applicable in the case of the
appellant. Once the respondents have
issued certificate showing date of birth of
the appellant as 01.09.1949 the respondent
no.2 was bound to correct the clerical
mistake in the record of the Board.

11. This Court has considered both
the judgments rendered by two Division
Benches of this Court and finds that the
judgment in the case of Babu Ram is
inapplicable on the facts of the case.
However, the judgment in the case of
Anand Singh (Supra) does observe that it is
the duty of the Board to correct the mistake
either inadvertent or typographical which
lies in its inherent jurisdiction which is not
governed by Regulation-7 of Chapter-3.

12. In the order impugned, it has been
mentioned by the opposite party no.2 that
the application form of the petitioner filled
up as regular student of Vidya Mandir Inter
College, Milkipur, Faizabad, showed her
date of birth as 15.07.1995. The Transfer
Certificate issued from her earlier school
Ram
Pati
Balbhadra
Prasad
Shukla
(R.P.B.P.) Junior High School, Milkipur,
Faizabad, for Classes VII and VIIIth
showed her date of birth as 20.01.1996.
The Scholar Register and the Admission
Register of Vidya Mandir Inter College,
Milkipur, Faizabad, also showed her date
of birth as 20.01.1996.
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. It is evident that there was an
inadvertent error in filling up of her form
by the School Authorities as a student of
Classes IX or Xth is an adolescent and not
competent or mature enough to correctly
fill up the form. This Court can take
judicial notice of the fact that it is always
the teachers who fill up the form, and the
students mostly sign on the dotted line. A
student like the petitioner who may have
been only 14 years of age at the time of
filling up of her form for High School may
have believed that whatever her teacher
wrote in her application form was correct
and may have signed without verifying the
Date of Birth details from the Scholar
Register maintained in her school on the
basis of Transfer Certificate is issued by the
Junior High School from which she passed
her Classes VII and VIII.

14. In such a case the observations
made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Akash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
Others reported in 2016 (3) Alld. L.J
146, squarely apply. This Court in Akash
Sharma (Supra) was considering a similar
case where the writ petitioner was seeking
a correction in the Date of Birth as printed
in the High School pass Certificate-CumMarksheet which had been incorrectly
shown. The Transfer Certificate and
Character Certificate issued by the School
had shown his Date of Birth correctly. The
petitioner
had
thereafter
passed
his
Intermediate from a different Inter College
and took his Transfer Certificate from the
said College also which showed his correct
date of birth. The Institution from where
the petitioner appeared in High School
Examination had certified that in the
School records the correct date of birth of
the petitioner had been recorded as of the
year 1993 and due to some mistake it was
printed in the High School Certificate as
1990. The petitioner applied for correction
under Regulation-7 Chapter-3 of the
Regulation framed under the Intermediate
Education Act and where a limitation of
three years was provided for moving such
application.
The
writ
petitioner
had
admittedly moved the application after
about five years from the date of issuance
of High School Certificate. Consequently,
his application was rejected by the
Secretary of the Board. The Court observed
in Paragraphs-11 to 19 of the said judgment
as follows:-

"(11) 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.

12. 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.

13. 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
8 All. Jyoti Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
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.

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.

14. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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..................."

15. The opposite party no.2 has taken
a hyper technical view and rejected the
application of the petitioner only on ground
of limitation without appreciating and
exercising inherent jurisdiction.

16. The order impugned is quashed
and the opposite party no.2 is directed to
pass a fresh order correcting the date of
birth of the petitioner in her High School
Certificate and Marksheet in accordance
with the report submitted by the opposite
party nos.3 and 4 from 15.07.1995 to
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.01.1996 and issue a corrected High
School Marksheet and Certificate within a
period of four weeks from the date a copy
of this order is produced before him.

17. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A322
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 7346 of 2021

Yogendra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Jitendra Pratap Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satish Chandra Kashish

Counsel for the Respondent:
-----

Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950-Petitioner claims declaration over his
portion of land (to give legal effect)which has
been divided in between him and his brother in
family settlement- and further injunction soughtCivil Court rejected plaint as not maintainable-
Revenue Court has the jurisdiction-if no relief
can be granted unless declaration of his tenancy
rights -suit is cognizable by Revenue Court-Act,
1930 is a personal law-all personal law with
regard to devolution of property becomes
immaterial in view of Act of 1950. No illegality in
impugned order-W.P. dismissed.

Held, . With respect to agricultural land, the Act
of 1950 is a special Act which would be
applicable notwithstanding any other law for the
time being in operation. The Act of 1950 for the
first
time
created
rights,
temporary
or
permanent, over agricultural land, it had been
promulgated for an entirely different purpose as
has been mentioned in the "Statement of
Objects and Reasons" of the said Act. The Act of
1930 need not have been repealed by the Act of
1950 as in pith and substance, the Act of 1930
dealt with self acquired property through gains
of learning by a member of a joint Hindu family
even with some aid of joint family funds. The
Act of 1930 is personal law. All personal law
with regard to devolution of property becomes
immaterial in view of the Act of 1950 as the Act
of 1950 creates for the first time Bhoomidhari
rights. (para 24)

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.Mangal Singh Vs Harkesh AIR 1958 Alld 42

2.Ram Awalamb & ors. Vs Jata Shankar & ors.,
1968 RD 470

3. Ram Padarath & ors. Vs IInd Additional
District Judge, Sultanpur 1989 RD 21 (FB)

4.Chandrika Misir Vs Bhaiya Lal; AIR 1973 SC
2391

5. Bismillah Vs Janeshwar Prasad & ors., 1990
(1) SCC 207

6. Kamla Prasad Vs Krishna Kant Pathak (2007)
4 SCC 213

7. Mahendr Singh Vs & ors. , 1967 RD 191

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner challenging the order dated
04.07.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.110 of
2013:Yogendra
Pratap
Singh
versus
Jeetendra Pratap Singh, and also the order
dated 09.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal
No.56 of 2020.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that
his father Late Kaamta Singh was a police