# University and Ors v. Mansoor Ali Khan

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 912
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-05
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/university-and-ors-v-mansoor-ali-khan-42210
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act-1921Chapter III-Part II-B-correction of date
of birth and name-petitioner failed in
High School Examination 2004-agagin
appeared
in
2005-date
of
birth
incorrectly recorded in mark sheet as
07.07.1991
instead
of
07.07.1992inspite of direction of Court-Secretary
rejected
representation
saying
the
Principal has already corrected-heldchange on basis of report of Principal
without opportunity of hearing-not only
in violation of principle of Natural Justice
but
contrary
to
regulation-order
quashed-Secretary to re-examine the
2 All] Rituraj Singh V. State of U.P. and others
913
matter after calling report from Principal
after giving opportunity to both.

Held: Para 9

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties
and
having
perused
the
regulations as also the impugned order,
the change in any part of the certificate
or mark sheet can be brought about
provided the same is not inconformity
with records or on the asking of the
candidate. In the instant case the
Secretary has proceeded to alter the
name of the petitioner and his date of
birth without putting the petitioner to
notice on the asking of the Principal of
the Institution. The order does not
indicate any discrepancy in the records
for bringing about this change in the
name of the petitioner and his date of
birth. The order, therefore, is in violation
of the principles of nature justice and not
only this it is not in conformity with the
regulations as quoted hereinabove.

## Text

912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
petitioner gave a scheduled caste certificate
and on the basis of that certificate petitioner
obtained employment.

6. The next argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that no formal
inquiry was held and petitioner's application
for appointment was not produced before
the Inquiry Officer or the authority which
passed the termination order to show that
petitioner had obtained employment by
asserting that he belonged to scheduled
caste. As petitioner categorically admitted
in the preliminary inquiry that he obtained
appointment by showing himself to be a
member of scheduled caste hence it was not
necessary to search the initial application
form of the petitioner. Moreover there is no
allegation that in the service book/record
petitioner has not been shown to have been
appointed under scheduled caste reserved
quota.

7. Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim
University and Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan
AIR 2000 SC 2783 and Ashok Kumar
Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors. (2007)
4 SCC 54 has held that a person
challenging an order on the ground that
opportunity of hearing was not provided to
him will have to show in the petition
challenging
the
order
that
in
case
opportunity had been provided, what
plausible cause he would have shown.
Opportunity of hearing is not an empty
formality.

8. Supreme Court in Chairman cum
Managing Director, Coal India Limited
and Anr. vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri
and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 75 has held that if
delinquent admits the charge, no procedural
irregularity can be taken into consideration.

9. In Commissioner of Police, New
Delhi v. Narender Singh AIR 2006 SC
1800 it has been held that even after
acquittal in criminal case, in departmental
proceedings the employee can be dismissed
from service merely on the basis of
confession made by him before police
(which was not admissible in criminal case
hence in the criminal case the employee
concerned was acquitted).

10. Accordingly, there is absolutely no
merit in the writ petition hence it is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 36242 of 2008

Rituraj Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Amar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act-1921Chapter III-Part II-B-correction of date
of birth and name-petitioner failed in
High School Examination 2004-agagin
appeared
in
2005-date
of
birth
incorrectly recorded in mark sheet as
07.07.1991
instead
of
07.07.1992inspite of direction of Court-Secretary
rejected
representation
saying
the
Principal has already corrected-heldchange on basis of report of Principal
without opportunity of hearing-not only
in violation of principle of Natural Justice
but
contrary
to
regulation-order
quashed-Secretary to re-examine the
2 All] Rituraj Singh V. State of U.P. and others
913
matter after calling report from Principal
after giving opportunity to both.

Held: Para 9

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties
and
having
perused
the
regulations as also the impugned order,
the change in any part of the certificate
or mark sheet can be brought about
provided the same is not inconformity
with records or on the asking of the
candidate. In the instant case the
Secretary has proceeded to alter the
name of the petitioner and his date of
birth without putting the petitioner to
notice on the asking of the Principal of
the Institution. The order does not
indicate any discrepancy in the records
for bringing about this change in the
name of the petitioner and his date of
birth. The order, therefore, is in violation
of the principles of nature justice and not
only this it is not in conformity with the
regulations as quoted hereinabove.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner appeared in the High
School Examination-2004 after having been
registered in Class-IX in terms of the
regulations
framed
under
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The date
of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 7th
July, 1992. The name of the petitioner was
mentioned as Ritu Raj Singh son of Raksh
Pal Singh.

3. The petitioner failed in the High
School Examination-2004 and he again
appeared in the High School Examination2005. His result was declared but when the
final mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner
by the college, his date of birth was
incorrectly shown as 7.7.1991 and his name
was wrongly spelled as Ritu Pal Singh. The
petitioner accordingly moved an application
for correction before the respondent-Board.

4. The power to carry out such
corrections is contained in Part-II-BChapter 3 of the Regulations narrating the
powers of the Secretary of the Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad. Para 7 of the said
regulation is extracted hereinunder:

^^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
ckn esa mldh
ckn esa mldh
ckn esa mldh
izfof"V;ksa esa dksbZ 'kqf} djsxk]
izfof"V;ksa esa dksbZ 'kqf} djsxk]
izfof"V;ksa esa dksbZ 'kqf} djsxk]
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 xbZ gks tks vlko/kkuh ls ifj"kn ds
Lrj ds ;k ml laLFkk ds] tgka ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk
ml laLFkk ds] tgka ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk
ml laLFkk ds] tgka ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk
ml laLFkk ds] tgka ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk
izkIr dh gks] Lrj ij vfHkys[k esa gks xbZ gksA ;g
izkIr dh gks] Lrj ij vfHkys[k esa gks xbZ gksA ;g
izkIr dh gks] Lrj ij vfHkys[k esa gks xbZ gksA ;g
izkIr dh gks] Lrj ij vfHkys[k esa gks xbZ gksA ;g
'kqf} lfpo }kjk mlh fLF
'kqf} lfpo }kjk mlh fLF
'kqf} lfpo }kjk mlh fLF
'kqf} lfpo }kjk mlh fLFkfr esa dh tk ldsxh
kfr esa dh tk ldsxh
kfr esa dh tk ldsxh
kfr esa dh tk ldsxh
tcfd vH;FkhZ us
tcfd vH;FkhZ us
tcfd vH;FkhZ us
tcfd vH;FkhZ us lEcfU/kr ijh{kk ds izek.k&i= dks
ifj"kn }kjk fuxZeu djus dh frfFk ls nks o"kZ ds
vUnj gh fyfidh; =qfV dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V djrs
gq, 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^^

5. The matter was being delayed, as a
result whereof the petitioner filed Writ
Petition No. 1105 of 2007 which was
disposed of with a direction to the Secretary
of the Parishad to decide his application
within a month. The judgment of this Court
dated 9th January, 2007 also records the
recommendation made by the District
Inspector of Schools dated 14th July, 2006
on the basis of the record that was placed
before him.

6. The petitioner, therefore, after
completing all the formalities approached
the
respondent-Board
whereafter
the
Secretary of the Board rejected the said
application on the ground that the Principal
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
of the institution vide his letter dated
23.7.2005 had earlier made a request for
such alteration in the name and date of birth
of the petitioner which was accordingly
granted vide order dated 27.7.2005. The
Secretary further indicated that since this
change was brought about by the principal
himself, therefore, no further alteration can
be made on the request of the petitioner.

7. It is this order dated 16th of May
2007 which has been assailed before this
Court on the ground that the Principal of the
Institution had no authority to request for
any change unless there was any thing
contrary in the records, and even if it was to
be done, the petitioner ought to have been
put to notice. Learned Counsel contends
that the said change, according to the
regulation quoted hereinabove, can be
brought out only on the asking of the
candidate concerned and not on the request
of the Principal of the Institution.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand contends that it appears that the
principal had made the request on the basis
of the record available with him and in such
circumstances the impugned order cannot
be faulted with.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the
regulations as also the impugned order, the
change in any part of the certificate or mark
sheet can be brought about provided the
same is not inconformity with records or on
the asking of the candidate. In the instant
case the Secretary has proceeded to alter the
name of the petitioner and his date of birth
without putting the petitioner to notice on
the asking of the Principal of the Institution.
The order does not indicate any discrepancy
in the records for bringing about this change
in the name of the petitioner and his date of
birth. The order, therefore, is in violation of
the principles of nature justice and not only
this it is not in conformity with the
regulations as quoted hereinabove.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 16.5.2007 rejecting the application of
the petitioner is hereby quashed. The
Secretary of the Board shall in the light of
the observations made herein above proceed
to examine the records after calling for a
report from the Principal of the institution
and thereafter pass an appropriate order on
the application of the petitioner within three
months after giving him an opportunity to
file objections, if any.

11. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37630 of 1995

Ravindra Nath Srivastava
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shyamal Narain
Sri Habib Ahmed

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Ajit Kumar
Sri J P Pandey
Sri Tarun Verma
SriVirendra Singh
Sri R.B.Pandey
Sri Shyam Singh
Sri Ajit Kuamr Singh