Dismissed¶9

Vaibhav Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025SPLA/111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sports college admission age eligibility; cancellation of candidature; biological age determination by Medical Board; maximum age 12 years; school leaving certificate Basic Shiksha Parishad; birth certificate not contemporaneous (dated 01.04.2024); Section 14 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009; Km. Sakshi distinguished; Guru Govind Singh Sports College Lucknow; Volleyball Stream; writ petition dismissed; special appeal dismissed; Allahabad High Court Division Bench; Arun Bhansali CJ and Kshitij Shailendra J.

What did the court decide?

Once the Medical Board determined the appellant's age, which was much beyond the maximum age prescribed in the advertisement, no case was made out in the appeal. ¶7

Vaibhav Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the appellant's candidature for admission to Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow (Volleyball Stream), on the ground that his biological age (15 years) exceeded the maximum prescribed age (12 years), was sustainable notwithstanding the school leaving certificate and birth certificate produced by him. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Once the Medical Board determined the appellant's age, which was much beyond the maximum age prescribed in the advertisement, no case was made out in the appeal.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The reliance on Km. Sakshi was misplaced: unlike that case, where a birth certificate was relied upon, the appellant had relied on a school leaving certificate issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad.

¶8

Key takeaways

The birth certificate relied on by the appellant was issued on 01.04.2024 and, not being contemporaneous (i.e., not issued at the time of birth), gave no authenticity to the claimed date of birth.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:29985-DB. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Division Bench) - Special Appeal No. 111 of 2025, decided 4.3.2025. Appeal against Single Judge's dismissal of writ petition challenging cancellation of the appellant's candidature for Volleyball Stream in Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, his biological age (15 years) exceeding the maximum age of 12 years prescribed in the advertisement. During pendency of the writ petition, a Medical Board (Orthopedics, Radiology and Dentist, not below Assistant Professor rank, Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Prayagraj) opined the age as 15-17 years; no objection to the report was filed before the learned Single Judge. Held: once the Medical Board determined the age as much beyond the maximum prescribed age, no case was made out in the appeal. Km. Sakshi (Special Appeal Defective No. 445 of 2024) distinguished: there a birth certificate was relied on and it was laid down that under Section 14 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 the indication was conclusive, whereas here the appellant relied on a school leaving certificate issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, and the birth certificate dated 01.04.2024 not being contemporaneous (not issued at the time of birth) lent no authenticity to the claimed date of birth. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29985-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 111 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Vaibhav Dwivedi Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Appellant :- Jagat Narayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ashutosh Tiwari, A.C.S.C. Ramanand Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

This appeal is directed against order dated 07.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 22937 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the cancellation of his candidature for Volleybal Stream in Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, has been dismissed.

¶7

The petitioner applied for admission to the college in question and after passing the written examination, when he was subjected to biological test, his age was found to be 15 years and the maximum age seeking admission being 12 years, his candidature was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition.

¶8

During pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 21.10.2024, learned Single Judge constituted a Medical Board for subjecting the petitioner to be examined for determination of his age. The Medical College constituted a committee for examination of biological age of the petitioner and opined that the age of the petitioner is 15-17 years. Based on the said medical report, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the order of cancellation of candidature of the petitioner did not require any interference.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant with the aid of judgement in

¶10

Km. Sakshi Vs. Government of India and 3 Others : Special Appeal Defective No. 445 of 2024 decided on 24.09.2024 made submissions that once the petitioner had produced the school leaving certificate issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad indicating a particular date of birth, there was no occasion for the respondents to subject the petitioner to further biological medical test. Reliance has also been placed on the birth certificate annexed with the petition.

¶11

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.

¶12

The learned Single Judge ordered for subjecting the petitioner to medial check by a committee at Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Prayagraj for determination of the biological age which was directed to be constituted by the Principal, Medical College, Prayagraj. It was further directed that the committee shall consist of doctors from the discipline of Orthopedics, Radiology and Dentist and not below the rank of Assistant Professor. The committee so constituted has given its report. Admittedly, no objection to the said report was filed before the learned Single Judge, wherein the age of the petitioner has been determined as 15-17 years.

¶13

Once the Medical Board has determined the age, which is much beyond the maximum age as prescribed in the advertisement, no case is made out in the appeal.

¶14

So far as the reliance placed on judgment in the case of Km. Sakshi (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the birth certificate was relied on and it was laid down that under Section 14 of the

¶15

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the said indication was conclusive. However, in the present case, the appellant had relied on a school leaving certificate issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Further the birth certificate relied on, is issued on 01.04.2024, the same is not contemporaneous i.e. issued at the time of Birth so as to give any authenticity to the said birth certificate.

¶16

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Sandeep/AKShukla

¶18

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vaibhav Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases