Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD, U.P. ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS versus SHIVA RAM SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad And Others v. Shiva Ram Singh - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 677 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11257 (11 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Special Appeal No. 677 of 2006

Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad,

U.P. Allahabad & others ... ..Appellants

Versus

Shiva Ram Singh          .....Respondent

******

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 24.3.2006 whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1298 of 2002 of the sole respondent in this appeal has been allowed and the appellant is directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.12.1941 instead of 1.10.1941 in his High School Certificate.

Short facts giving rise to the present appeal is that the petitioner respondent passed the High School Examination in the year 1959 and the certificate by the appellant was furnished to him in the year 1965. Since as per version of the respondent his date of birth was not correctly recorded in the High School Certificate, he applied for correction of the same in the year 1967. The said application was rejected by the appellant vide order dated 6.12.1968 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), on the ground that the correction application is made after three years and, therefore, being time barred, cannot be entertained. The petitioner-respondent thereafter again made an application on 24.4.1968 stating that since the certificate was given to him in the year 1965, the period of three years is to be counted from 1965 and, therefore, the application was within time. The said application remained pending and in the meanwhile the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), asked the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Kanpur Region, Kanpur, to make an enquiry about the correct date of birth of the petitioner-respondent and submit report. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools, after making enquiry vide his letter dated 7th September, 2000 recommended that the date of birth of the petitioner-respondent may be corrected in the High School Certificate as his correct date of birth is 20th December, 1944 and it has wrongly been entered as 1st October, 1941 in the High School Certificate. Thereafter, it appears that the matter remained pending before the Board and the petitioner-respondent approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22658 of 2001, which was finally disposed of directing the Board to consider the matter and decide the petitioner-respondent''s representation for correction of birth. Consequently, the Secretary of the Board passed the order dated 24.10.2001 holding that after such a long time correction of date of birth in the High School Certificate is not permissible. The petitioner-respondent again approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1298 of 2002 assailing the aforesaid order passed by the Board. The Hon'ble Single Judge having appreciated the contentions made by the parties and also having noticed that the date of birth of the petitioner-respondent in the Intermediate Certificate issued by the appellant is 20.12.1944, and further the date of birth of his elder brother is 1.5.1942, reached to the conclusion that the respondent's date of birth has not been correctly entered in the High School Certificate and thus, it needs to be corrected.

The contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants that the petitioner-respondent has applied for the correction of date of birth at the fag end of his service is mis-conceived. Admittedly, in the service record the date of birth of the petitioner-respondent is recorded as 20.12.1944 and the correction was sought in the High School Certificate for which the petitioner-respondent was making efforts since 1968. The other objection raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the petitioner-respondent has not impleaded the State as respondent in the array of the parties to the writ petition, is also mis-conceived for the reason that no relief was sought for against the State Government. The Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad  (Board) is an autonomous statutory body and, therefore, the State Government was not made party and that cannot be a ground for interfering with the order of Hon'ble Single Judge.  Besides that this objection was not raised before the Hon'ble Single Judge and, therefore, at this stage, in the special appeal it cannot be entertained.

We are conscious of the fact that any correction in the date of birth in the High School Certificate cannot be made after unreasonable delay, specially when the regulation provides that the correction is to be made within three years from the date of issuance of the certificate. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, as has been noticed by the Hon'ble Single Judge that the certificate itself was made available to the petitioner in the year 1965 and there is no denial to this fact nor any evidence is brought on record to establish that the certificate was given to the petitioner much prior to 1965 as has been claimed by the respondent, and also in view of the fact that in the Intermediate Certificate, examination of which was also conducted by this very appellant, his date of birth is not the same as has been entered in the High School Certificate and virtually the respondent is not going to get any advantage because in the service book his correct date of birth is recorded which is 20.12.1944, we do not find any reason to disagree with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

The appeal is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated:11.7.2006

SKM


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.