# Nathunee and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 107
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-12-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18703 of 1999
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nathunee-and-others-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-ghazipur-and-another-40301
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Intermediate Education Act 1921-Chapt.
III Regulation 7 (as amended 1983)-
Correction of Date of Birth- in High
School Certificate - the dat e of birth as
recorded in Primary School was 5.7.63-in
Transfer Certificate wrongly recorded as
1.1.59- according the same mistake
continued in High School certificate also-
Petitioner got appointed as accountant
in UPSRTC and in service book also date
of birth recorded 1.1.59- passed High
School Examination in the year 1978-
representation made 1989- cannot be
changed- legal aspect explained.

Held- Para 10 & 11

If there was any mistake in the date of
birth entered into his service book the
petitioner ought to have moved an
application at the very initial stage
immediately when the mistake came to
his knowledge in 1978 or when he had
first signed his service book after the
same was prepared. The assertion of the
petitioner
that
he
moved
the
representation immediately on coming to
know about his incorrect date of birth is
falsified from the records.

The present case is squarely covered by
the aforesaid decision. In this view of
the matter, no writ of mandamus can be
issued to the educational authorities to
correct the date of birth of the petitioner
and hence the prayer of the petitioner
cannot be granted.
Case law discussed:
1994(24) ALR 173

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Nathunee and others V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and another
107
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 1.12.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18703 of 1999

Lala Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
Secretary Madhyamiak Shiksha Parishad,
Allahabad and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Intermediate Education Act 1921-Chapt.
III Regulation 7 (as amended 1983)-
Correction of Date of Birth- in High
School Certificate - the dat e of birth as
recorded in Primary School was 5.7.63-in
Transfer Certificate wrongly recorded as
1.1.59- according the same mistake
continued in High School certificate also-
Petitioner got appointed as accountant
in UPSRTC and in service book also date
of birth recorded 1.1.59- passed High
School Examination in the year 1978-
representation made 1989- cannot be
changed- legal aspect explained.

Held- Para 10 & 11

If there was any mistake in the date of
birth entered into his service book the
petitioner ought to have moved an
application at the very initial stage
immediately when the mistake came to
his knowledge in 1978 or when he had
first signed his service book after the
same was prepared. The assertion of the
petitioner
that
he
moved
the
representation immediately on coming to
know about his incorrect date of birth is
falsified from the records.

The present case is squarely covered by
the aforesaid decision. In this view of
the matter, no writ of mandamus can be
issued to the educational authorities to
correct the date of birth of the petitioner
and hence the prayer of the petitioner
cannot be granted.
Case law discussed:
1994(24) ALR 173

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

Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

1. The controversy involved in this
writ petition is as to what is the correct
date of birth of the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed for a
direction to the respondents to correct the
date of birth of the petitioner in all the
documents and certificate issued by the
educational and other authorities.

3. According to the petitioner,
1.1.1959, an incorrect date of his birth,
has been recorded in all the documents
including his service book and certificates
issued by the educational authorities. He
claims that his correct date of birth is
5.7.1963.

4. It appears that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Accountant in
the
U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corporation. The date of birth recorded in
the service book of the petitioner is
1.1.1959 on the basis of his High School
Certificate. The petitioner moved an
application to the Secretary Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,
Allahabad for correction of his date of
birth as 5.7.1963 but the same is still
pending decision, hence this writ petition.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
108
5. The facts of the case, in brevity,
are that the petitioner alleges that he had
taken his primary education from the
Prathamik Vidyalaya Munari, Chaubepur
as is apparent from the transfer certificate
(Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued
by the Head Master of the Primary School
Munari, Chaubepur and counter signed by
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi on
3.11.1998. According to the transfer
certificate the petitioner alleges to have
studied at the Prathamik Vidayalaya
Munari, Chaubepur up to V Class and his
date of birth is 5.7.1963. The petitioner
further alleges to have submitted his
original
transfer
certificate
to
the
Principal
Veer
Lorik
Intermediate
College, Dhureshwari Dham, Gosaipur
Mohan, Varanasi at the time of taking
admission in Class VI.

6. The counsel for the petitioner
submits that after the education of the
petitioner up to Class VIII in the Veer
Lorik Intermediate College, the Principal
issued the transfer certificate (Annexure 2
to the writ petition) mentioning the date
of birth of the petitioner as 1.1.1959
arbitrarily and against the record on the
basis that the petitioner had taken
education up to VII class at home and had
not studied in any school up to Class VII
before taking admission in the said
College. The counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner had
submitted his original transfer certificate
issued by the Principal of the Veer Lorik
Intermediate College at the time of
admission in Class IX in Subhash
Intermediate College, Chaubepur. He
passed High School Examination as a
regular student in the year 1978 from the
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, U.P., Allahabad. In the High
School certificate issued by the Board of
High School and Intermediate Education,
UP, Allahabad the date of birth of the
petitioner was mentioned as 1.1.1959 on
the basis of Class VIII certificate. The
counsel for the petitioner submits that as
soon as the petitioner came to know that
an incorrect date of birth has been
recorded in his High School certificate he
moved a representation to the Principal of
the Veer Lorik Intermediate College for
correction of his date of birth as 5.7.1963
on the basis of the transfer certificate
issued by the Headmaster of Prathamik
Vidyalaya Munari, Chaubepur but to no
avail.

7. In paragraph 3 (B) of the Counter
affidavit it has been averred that for the
first time the petitioner has made the
representation for correction of his date of
birth on 29/30.9.1984 to the Principal of
the Veer Lorik Intermediate College
followed
by
representations
dated
10.4.1989, 12.10.1989 and 18.10.1990
and the representation dated 15.4.1989 to
the Regional Manager, UP State Road
Transport Corporation, Faizabad Zone,
Faizabad while he was issued High
School examination. In paragraph 3 (c) it
is further stated that if there is any
mistake in the High School certificate, the
same may be got corrected within two
years of the issuance of the High School
certificate under Regulation 7 (chapter
III) of the Regulations (as amended in the
year 1983) framed under the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The
petitioner made such a representation on
27.11.1998, which is highly time barred.

8. The counsel for the respondents in
support of his contentions has relied upon
decision of this court rendered in
Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P.
& another, 1994 (24) ALR 173 wherein it
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Lala Yadav V. Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and others
109
has been held that it is the candidate who
has to declare his date of birth in
examination form and the Board cannot
examine its correctness. It is further held
that the Board is required to make
correction in the High School certificate if
there is any omission or error on the part
of the Board but the Board has no
jurisdiction to inquire as to what is the
correct date of birth even if an incorrect
date of birth is given by the examinee in
his examination form.

9. Admittedly the petitioner came to
know about the fact of incorrect recoding
of his date of birth in the transfer
certificate on 30.6.1976 issued by the
Principal of the Veer Lorik Intermediate
College. It is also apparent that the
petitioner had filled in the signed his date
of birth as 1.1.1959 in the examination
form of High School before appearing in
the examination. This date is also given in
the High School certificate, a photostat
copy of which is annexed as Annexure 3
to the writ petition. It is admitted fact that
the date of birth of the petitioner as
1.1.1959 is recorded in his service book
on the basis of High School certificate. It
is further apparent from Annexure 2 to the
writ petition that the petitioner had not
studied in any school up to Class VII and
had taken admission direct in Class VIII
in Veer Lorik Intermediate College after
taking education at home up to Class VII.

10. The transfer certificate alleged to
have been issued by the Headmaster of a
primary school is not an incorrigible
document. In the transfer certificate
issued by Principal of the Veer Lorik
Intermediate College and in the High
School certificate as well as in the Service
Book of the petitioner of date of birth of
the petitioner is recorded as 1.1.1959. It is
settled law that in case of dispute about
the date of birth, the date of birth as
recorded in the Service Book should be
taken as the authenticated date of birth as
this date of birth is recorded on the basis
of High School certificate. If there was
any mistake in the date of birth entered
into his service book the petitioner ought
to have moved an application at the very
initial
stage
immediately
when
the
mistake came to his knowledge in 1978 or
when he had first signed his service book
after the same was prepared. The
assertion of the petitioner that he moved
the representation immediately on coming
to know about his incorrect date of birth is
falsified from the records.

11. The present case is squarely
covered by the aforesaid decision. In this
view of the matter, no writ of mandamus
can
be
issued
to
the
educational
authorities to correct the date of birth of
the petitioner and hence the prayer of the
petitioner cannot be granted.

12. For the reasons stated above, this
is not a case for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution. The writ petition
is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
110
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Application No. 191754 of
2004.
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44673 of 2004

Track Parts of India Mazdoor Sabha

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.P. Agrawal
Miss Bushra Maryam
Anita Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
Sri K.R. Sirohi
S.C.

Court fee Act 1870-Section 5-Whether
the order passed by Taxing Officer under
Section 5 of the Act is final on subject to
judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India?-held-order
became final only for the purposes of
court fee, but subject to judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Held: Para 19 & 21

In view of the law laid down by the apex
Court, as noted above, the order of
Taxing Officer is not immune from
judicial review of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution. The order of
Taxing Officer is final only for the
purposes of the Court Fees Act. The Full
Bench of this Court in Smt. Gindori Bibi's
case (supra) has also taken the view that
opinion formed by Taxing Officer with
regard to importance of the question is
subject to writ of certiorari.

From what has been said above, it is
clear that order of the Taxing Officer is
subject to scrutiny by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution and there
cannot be any fetter in exercise of
jurisdiction by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution while considering
the
order
of
Taxing
Officer.
The
jurisdiction of this Court shall not
confine only to issue a writ directing the
Taxing Officer to refer the question
under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. It
is true that this Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution can always issue direction
to the Taxing Officer to make a reference
under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act but
apart from that the Court can always
set-aside
the
order
and
pass
any
appropriate order in the ends of justice
including an order setting aside the
report of the Stamp Reporter as well as
the order of the Taxing Officer and
making a declaration with regard to
sufficiency of the Court fee.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1981 SC 298
AIR 1987 SC 716
AIR 1964 SC 743
AIR 1977 Alld. 490
AIR 1998 Alld. 396
AIR 1977 Alld. 122
1997 (2) ACT 1496
AIR 1966 SC 249
AIR 1977 SC 237
AIR 1997 (3) SCC 261
2003 (6) SCC 675
1994 CRC (i) 16

(B) Court Fee Act 1870, Section 5-Court
fee-Petition filed by the sectary of Tax
part of India Mazdoor Sangh-challenging
the order passed by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner-being Regd. Trade Unionentitled to expose the right of its
member-Petition files by the petitioner
held-maintainable-hence
Single
Court
fee sufficient.
Held: Para 23, 24 & 25
In the present case there is only one
petitioner i.e. registered Trade Union.
The petitioner being one, the writ