Rameshwar Dayal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 31195 of 2025

¶3

Rameshwar Dayal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anant Kumar Gupta, Piyush Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 32

¶7

HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to pass appropriate order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20.06.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already represented his case through proper channel for correction of date of birth on 19.08.1982, but since then no order has been passed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached again the Uttar Pradesh State Board of High School and Intermediate Education (here-in-after referred to as "the Board") vide letter dated 20.05.2024 for correction of the date of birth.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said representation/letter dated 20.05.2024 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 without considering the fact that the petitioner has approached the Board through proper channel within time in the year 1982 itself. He further submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner has approached beyond extra-ordinary delay and as per Part II-B Regulation 7 of Chapter III of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the time limit to approach the Board for correction of date of birth by way of filing the application is within two years from the date of declaration of result.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that he has approached the Board within two years as per the mandates of the said

¶12

WRIC No. 31195 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

regulation, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and without application of mind, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

¶15

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence before the Court that he has represented before the Board in the year 1982, which has also been noted by the Board while passing the impugned order. The petitioner has also not filed a copy of letter dated 19.08.1982 as stated that he had moved appropriate application for correction of the date of birth before the Board, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents submitted that merely on the averments made in the letter dated 20.05.2024 given for correction of date of birth after more than 41 years.

¶16

It is also submitted that there are no ground available in this writ petition for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2024. It is further submitted that the instant writ petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law, which deserves to be dismissed.

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Shishir Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appeared on advance accepted notice on behalf of the State-respondents, perused the contents made in the writ petition and documents on record.

¶18

For proper adjudication, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 is quoted as under:-

¶19

" महोदय,

¶20

उपयुर्क्त िवषयक आपके पत्र िदनांक 20-05-2024 के सन्दभर् में अवगत कराना है िक आप द्वारा जन्मितिथ संशोधन हेतु प्रेिषत पत्र िदनांक 19-08-1982 को पिरषद कायार्लय में प्राप्त कराने के सम्बन्ध में कोई भी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है। साथ ही यह भी अवगत कराना है िक पिरषद िविनयमों के अध्याय-3 के िविनयम-7 में दी गई व्यवस्थानुसार सिचव पिरषद की ओर से सफल उम्मीदवारों को पिरषद की परीक्षा में उत्तीणर् होने का प्रमाण-पत्र िविहत प्रपत्र में देगा और बाद में उसकी प्रिविष्टयों में कोई शुिद्ध करेगा, बशतेर् िक प्रमाण-पत्र में िकसी ऐसी गलत प्रिविष्ट िकसी अिवचािरत िलिपकीय भूल या लोप के कारण या िकसी ऐसी िलिपकीय मूल के कारण की गई हो, जो असावधानी से पिरषद के स्तर के या उस संस्था के जहाँ से अिन्तम बार िशक्षा प्राप्त की हो स्तर पर अिभलेख में हो गई हो। यह शुिद्ध सिचव द्वारा उसी िस्थित में की जा सकेगी,

¶21

WRIC No. 31195 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

जबिक अभ्यथीर् ने सम्बिन्धत परीक्षा के प्रमाण-पत्र को पिरषद द्वारा िनगर्मन की ितिथ से दो वषर् के अन्दर ही िलिपकीय त्रुिट की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट करते हुए सम्बिन्धत प्रधानाचायर् केन्द्र व्यवस्थापक को त्रुिट के संशोधन हेतु प्राथर्ना-पत्र प्रस्तुत कर िदया हो और उसकी प्रित पंजीकृत डाक से सिचव पिरषद को भी प्रेिषत की हो।"

¶24

उक्त के अितिरक्त यह भी अवगत कराना है िक अभ्यथीर् के अंकपत्र तथा प्रमाण-पत्र में अभ्यथीर् के नाम, िपता के नाम अथवा माता के नाम में यिद कोई वतर्नी त्रिट है तो अभ्यिथयों द्वारा यथा समय आवेदन करने पर उत्ते पिरषद कायार्लय द्वारा प्रमािणत साक्ष्यों के आधार पर तत्काल शुद्ध कर िदये जाने की व्यवस्था है।

¶25

उक्त प्रकरण के सम्बन्ध में पुनः अवगत कराना है िक आपके पूवर् पत्र िदनांक 04-04-2023 एवं 04-042023 के क्रम में पिरषद कायार्लय के पत्रांकः मा०िश०प०/मुख्यालय/अिभलेख/247 िदनांक 01-06-2023 रिजस्टडर् डाक संख्या: RU009315355IN िदनांक 02-06-2023 एवं पत्राकः मा०िश०प० / मुख्यालय/अिभलेख/188 िदनाक 13-05-2024 रिजस्टडर् डाक संख्या: RU013945738IN िदनांक 14-05-2024 द्वारा आपको वस्तुिस्थित से अवगत कराया जा चुका है।"

¶26

In the impugned order, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has failed to submit any evidence regarding statement of the representation dated 19.08.1982 with the Board for the purpose of correction of date of birth. In this writ petition, the petitioner has not produced any evidence, before this Court also, regarding the submission of representation dated 19.08.1982 before the Board, even not he has filed the said representation dated 19.08.1982 along with the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed as per Part II-B Regulation 7 of Chapter III of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Part II-B Regulation 7 of Chapter III of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is reproduced as under:-

¶27

"7. स िचव पिरषद की ओर से सफल अम्मीदवारों को पिरषद की परीक्षा में उत्तीणर् होने क प्रमाण-पत्र में िकसी ऐसी गलत प्रिविष्ट िकसी अवचािरत िलिपकीय भूल या लोप के कारण क प्रमाण-पत्र िविहत प्रपत्र में देगा और बाद में उसकी प्रिविष्टयों में कोई शुिद्ध करेगा बहिक िकसी प्रेस िलिपकीय भूल के कारण की गई हो जो असावधानी से पिरषद के स्तर के या उस संस् के जहाँ से अिन्तम बार िशक्षा प्राप्त की हो स्तर पर अिभलेख में हो गई हो। यह शुिद्ध सिचव द्वा उसी िस्थित में की जा सकेगी अबिक अभ्यथीर् ने सम्बिन्धत परीक्षा के प्रमाणपत्र को पिरषद द्वार िनगर्मन करने की ितिथ से दो वषर् के अन्दर ही िलिपकीय त्रुिट की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट करते हैं सम्बिन्धत प्रधानाचायर्/केन्द्र व्यवस्थापक को त्रुिट के संशोधन हेतु प्राथर्ना-पत्र प्रस्तुत कर िदया है और उसकी प्रित पंजीकृत डाक से सिचव, पिरषद् को भी प्रेिषत की हो।"

¶28

Taking into consideration the above-said statutory regulation that any application for the purpose of making any correction in the date of birth that has to be submitted within two years. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached the Board by way of filing the representation

¶29

WRIC No. 31195 of 2025

¶30

4

¶31

dated 20.05.2024 and earlier also on 04.04.2023 after more than 40 years, which is contrary to the statutory provisions as stated above. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Intermediate Education Board after considering the statutory provisions and other materials.

¶32

I do not find any ground in the writ petition for interfering in the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶34

September 9, 2025 Atul

¶35

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

Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhay Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangeeta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dasharath Yadav and 2 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Pratima Saraswat vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ghanshyam Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gautam Kumar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others