Single judge dismissed the writ petition. The court held that the petitioner failed to pursue a within-time claim to correct her date of birth in 2011, deeming the subsequent plea an afterthought unsupported by satisfying evidence.
No direction to correct petitioner's date of birth was issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1156 of 2020
Petitioner :- Surya Kala Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Yadava,Shobh Nath
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon respondents to correct petitioner's date of birth as 12.1.1998 in place of 2.1.1988.
Petitioner contends that she appeared in High School examination in the year 2011 with Roll No.28500197 from respondent no.5 institution, but her date of birth was incorrectly mentioned in the school records. According to petitioner an application was moved in the year 2011 itself for correction to be incorporated in petitioner's date of birth but as nothing was done, petitioner made a fresh application on 16.10.2019, which is not being considered.
While entertaining the writ petition, this Court had granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Instructions have been received from the Regional Secretary of the Board, as per which limitation prescribed for entertaining such application by virtue of Regulation 7 Chapter III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is two years from the date of appearance in the High School examination. It is stated that petitioner has never submitted any application within the limitation prescribed and the first application submitted in that regard is dated 16.10.2019.
This Court on 10.2.2020 have passed following orders:-
" Petitioner is permitted to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the alleged recommendation made by the Institution in the year 2011 for correction in petitioner's date of birth.
Post as fresh on 13.02.2020. "
A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which a letter allegedly sent by the institution to the Additional Secretary in the year 2011 is annexed but there is nothing on record to show that this letter was ever got received in the office concerned. It is highly improbable that in the event such a letter was sent and no action was taken, the petitioner would do nothing for a
period of more than 09 years before approaching the Board again in the year 2019.
In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that plea of sending of application for correction in date of birth within time is an afterthought. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner as to why the claim was not pursued even after an application was allegedly made in the year 2011. The office of the Board has otherwise certified that no such letter was ever received. In such view of the matter, no direction is required to be issued to correct petitioner's date of birth.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Anil
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to correct her date of birth given that the claim was not pursued within the prescribed time limit.
Surya Kala Gautam
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
