Dismissed

Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another v. Nishith Kumar Alias Dr. Nishith Kumar Rai and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023/66/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal, the Board challenged an order allowing correction of a respondent's date of birth in school records despite statutory time limits. The Court held that established records confirmed the corrected date and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed, condoning the delay and upholding the order permitting correction of the date of birth.

Board of High School and Intermediate Education… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 66 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Board Of High School And Intermediate Education

¶5

U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Secy. And Another

¶6

Respondent :- Nishith Kumar Alias Dr. Nishith Kumar Rai And

¶7

Another

¶8

Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.

¶9

Counsel for Respondent :- Sudeep Kumar

¶10

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶11

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶12

(Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2023: Application for condonation of delay)

¶13

1. Heard Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Prashant Singh Atal, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent.

¶14

2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶15

3. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶16

4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient.

¶17

[2]

¶18

5. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶19

(Order on the Appeal)

¶20

1. By means of instant intra-Court appeal, the appellants/Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Secy. (hereinafter referred to as "Board") has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ C No.8477 of 2022: Nishith Kumar @ Dr. Nishith Kumar Rai vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and others which was filed by the respondent No.1 challenging an order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the appellant rejecting a prayer made by the respondent No.1 for correction of his date of birth and for issuance of a direction to the appellant to correct their records pertaining to the high school certificate by changing the date of birth of the respondent No.1 so as to make it 01.10.1963 instead of 01.10.1960.

¶21

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 had passed High School Examination conducted by the Board in the year 1977 from Shree Khedan Lal Rashtriya

¶22

[3]

¶23

Intermediate College, Chetganj, Varanasi. In the marksheet issued to him, his date of birth was incorrectly mentioned as 01.10.1960 and his father has moved an application seeking correction of the date of birth of the respondent No.1 and, accordingly, his date of birth was corrected to 01.10.1963 and a corrected marksheet as well as a certificate was issued to the respondent No.1.

¶24

3. The respondent No.1 is working as a Professor in Lucknow University and in all his educational certificates as well as in his service book, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.10.1963.

¶25

4. On 30.03.2022, a First Information Report was lodged by the Registrar of Lucknow University alleging that the respondent No.1 had fabricated his date of birth. However, after investigation, the police has submitted a Final Report in the matter.

¶26

5. The Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow has also conducted enquiry in the matter and he has given a report that the correct date of birth of the respondent No.1 is 01.10.1963.

¶27

6. Previously, the respondent No.1 had filed Writ C No.6896 of 2022 which was disposed off with a direction to the

¶28

[4]

¶29

Secretary of the Intermediate Education Board to take a decision in the matter after tracing out the records pertaining to the petitioner/appellant. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent No.1 had moved a representation which was rejected on the ground that Chapter III Regulation 7 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1921") does not permit change of date of birth after a period of two years.

¶30

7. The Hon'ble Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the Secretary of Intermediate Education Board to revisit the matter after considering the records produced by the respondent No.1 as well as the records of Shree Khedan Lal Rashtriya Intermediate Collage, Chetganj, Varanasi. In case, after perusal of the records, the Secretary is of the view that correction is required in the records of the Board. Chapter III Regulation 7 of Act, 1921 shall not come in his way.

¶31

8. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the Secretary of Intermediate Education Board had written a letter dated 14.12.2022 to the District Inspector of School, Varanasi directing him to carry out an enquiry, verify the records of

¶32

[5]

¶33

the Collage relating to the admission and other educational documents of the respondent No.1 and submit his report along with evidence of the date of birth of the respondent No.1, after countersigning the same.

¶34

9. In furtherance of the aforesaid letter dated 14.12.2022 issued by the Secretary of the U.P. Intermediate Education Board, the District Inspector of School, Varanasi has sent a letter dated 24.12.2022, annexing therewith an enquiry report dated 23.12.2022 wherein it has been stated that the date of birth of the respondent No.1 mentioned in the scholar register and the transfer certificate, is 01.10.1963 and that the respondent No.1 had passed class VIII examination from Muslim Inter College in the year 1974-75 and in the transfer certificate issued by the said Collage also his date of birth mentioned as 01.10.1963.

¶35

10. As the Hon'ble Single Judge had merely directed the Secretary of U.P. Intermediate Education Board to revisit the matter after considering the records produced by the respondent No.1 as well as records of the Collage and merely this much was provided by the Hon'ble Single Judge that if in light of the records, the Secretary of the Board is

¶36

of the view that the correction is required, Chapter III Regulation 7 of the Act, 1921 shall not come in way and

¶37

[6]

¶38

Secretary of the Board has already got an enquiry conducted in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in which it had been clearly established that since inception, the date of birth of the respondent No.1 is mentioned as 01.10.1963 in all the records, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

¶39

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant special appeal lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶40

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶41

Order Date :- 14.2.2023/Shubhankar

¶42

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another v. Nishith Kumar Alias Dr. Nishith Kumar Rai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another v. Nishith Kumar Alias Dr. Nishith Kumar Rai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rafi Parvez Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D.and Anr. Vs U.P. State Public Sevice Tribunal Thru. Registrar and Ors.

Naresh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Ramhet Vs Sunita Devi and Another

Sayyed Mohd. Faizan Vs Hina Parveen

Sonam Devi and Another Vs Na