Priya Kumari Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. of Madhyamic Siksha Vibhag, Lucknow and Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32090

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9534 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Priya Kumari Verma

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Of Madhyamic Siksha Vibhag, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Sunil Kumar,Mahendra Kumar Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azam Shafeequi,Swati Bisaria

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶8

Shri Azam Shafeequi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶9

The petitioner has approached this Court with limited prayer seeking quashing of the order dated 26.7.2022 passed by the Additional Secretary, Regional Office of the Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education, Prayagraj(hereinafter referred to as the " Board ") whereby the representation of the petitioner regarding change of her date of birth has been rejected.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that date of birth of the petitioner is 18.9.1997, however in the marksheet, it has been incorrectly incorporated as 18.9.1991. The petitioner had moved a representation seeking the aforesaid correction which has been rejected.

¶11

It has been submitted that the petitioner was admitted in Class IX at Sindhi Girls Inter College, Ram Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow in the academic year 2009-2010. While seeking admission in the said school, the petitioner had submitted the necessary documents including the documents where she was taking education earlier and in all such documents, the date of birth was mentioned as 18.9.1997. It is also urged that a registration card was issued by the Board itself wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been indicated as 18.9.1997, however it appears that on account of some inadvertent error, the date of birth of the petitioner in the marksheets and the certificates issued by the Board, has been incorrectly incorporated as 18.9.1991.

¶12

Noticing the aforesaid discrepancy, this Court on 26.5.2025 had passed the following order :-

¶13

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He submits that though the court has sought explicit instructions in terms of the order dated 17.4.2025, however, the written instructions which have been provided dated 20.5.2025, a copy of which has been provided to the court for its perusal and the same is taken on record, it does not

¶15

answer the query of the court.

¶16

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel submits that he requires a day's time to clarify the aforesaid position regarding the registration which has been brought on record by the institution alongwith its counter affidavit and also finds mention in the written instructions filed on behalf of the respondent State authorities.

¶17

Put up this case on 28.5.2025, as fresh."

¶18

This Court also issued notice to respondent

¶19

no.4 institution. Shri Shafeequi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the institution has categorically stated that as per record of the institution, the date of birth of the petitioner was 18.9.1997. He has relied upon a registration card issued by the Board wherein the said date is incorporated. It is also urged that since the record pertains to the year 2009-2010, hence they are in the mutilated state and whatever records are available, the same can be cross checked from the Board itself. However, as far as the institution is concerned, the date of birth of the petitioner is 18.9.1997. which was also verified from the previous institution from where the petitioner had taken education (i.e. Sanatan Dharma Vidya Mandir Junior High School).

¶20

The learned Standing Counsel has provided

¶21

the copy the written instructions dated 25.5.2025 issued under the signatures of Additional Secretary of the U.P. Intermediate Board wherein they have annexed the Annexure No.2 which is a letter dated 1.5.2025 written by the Secretary and addressed to the Additional Secretary indicating that in terms of the instructions sought by the Court in the instant writ petition, as per the records, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 18.9.1997, A copy of the registration card issued by the Board has also been annexed with the said written instructions wherein prima facie , the date of birth of the petitioner appears to be 18.9.1997.

¶22

Noticing the aforesaid, this Court by means of the order dated 26.5.2025, had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek clear instructions regarding the said date of birth so that there may not be any doubt left in future and furtherance thereof, another copy of the written instructions dated 27.5.2025 has been provided to the Court, which is also taken on record.

¶23

In terms of the latest instructions, it has been indicated that there might be some inadvertent

¶24

error while feeding the data in the data bank relating to the institution. Taking note of the aforesaid stand as well as the fact that the institution i.e. respondent no.4 has verified and has supported the date of birth of the petitioner to be 18.9.1997 which as per the registration card issued by the Board itself also incorporates the same date of birth. It is not the stand of the respondent State that the registration card which has been brought on record by the institution is forged or that there was any role of the petitioner in getting an incorrect date of birth incorporated.

¶25

In the light of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the rejection of the representation moved by the petitioner was not justified as the clear stand of the State indicates that the date of birth as per their own record is also 18.9.1997 and it appears that while feeding the data, an incorrect date of birth has been entered.

¶26

For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 26.7.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to carry on the necessary correction in the date of birth in the

¶27

educational certificates/ marksheets of the petitioner as 18.9.1997 and issue the corrected marksheets/ certificates within a period of six weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent no.2.

¶28

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.

¶29

Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Shukla

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Priya Kumari Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. of Madhyamic Siksha Vibhag, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Kumari Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. of Madhyamic Siksha Vibhag, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gladys Basil Sharma Vs Ravi Basil Sharma

Aasma Bano Vs Nazeer Ali

Vaishnavi Singh @ Roli Singh Vs Roshan Singh

Saleemullah and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Finance, Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Aftek Devlopers Pvt. Ltd., Lko. Thru. Authorized Representative, Mohd. Shakir vs Trilochan Singh

Vishram vs Anil Kumar, Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko.