Dismissed

Kapil Prasad Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2024WPC/1790/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking correction of date of birth in a Class 10th mark-sheet filed over a decade after issuance, without birth certificate support. Court relied on precedents upholding three-year limitation for corrections and dismissed the writ, leaving petitioner free to seek declaration via civil suit.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner at liberty to pursue civil court for declaration of date of birth.

Kapil Prasad Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1790 of 2021

¶5

Kapil Prasad Yadav S/o Gyani Ram Yadav, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dandkhadua Post Jhingo Thana Rajpur Tahsil Rajpur Zila Balrampur District Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG)

¶9

Secretary Madhymik Shiksha Mandal Pension Bada Raipur (CG)

¶10

Principal, Ursuline H S School Jhingo Post Jhingo Thana Rajpur Tahsil Rajpur Zila Balrampur Ramanujganj (CG)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate & Mr. V. Siddharth Ojha, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Vedant Sadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

05/07/2024

¶16

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶17

“i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶18

call the entire record pertaining to the matter.

¶19

ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶20

iv. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶21

v. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶22

direct the Respondent No.2 ‘Secretary Madhyamik

¶23

¶24

Shiksha Mandal Pension Bada Raipur’ (CG) to rectify the clerical error in the 10^th Mark sheet of petitioner in interest of justice.”

¶25

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.3.2021 petitioner

¶26

submitted a representation before respondent No.2 for correction of his date of birth in mark-sheet of Class 10^th and issuance of corrected mark sheet, mentioning that date of birth of petitioner in Class 5^th and 8^th mark-sheets is mentioned as 28.12.1993, but due to typographical error, in Class 10^th Marksheet his date of birth is mentioned as ‘28.12.1990’. Along with representation, petitioner also submitted documents in support of his contention. It is further mentioned by petitioner that he has been recently appointed as ‘Sepoy’ in Central Reserve Police Force, he is undergoing training at Bharni, Bilaspur and he is required to submit original mark sheet of Class 10^th with the department. However, till date respondent No.2 has not taken any step for correction of date of birth of petitioner in his Class 10^th mark sheet. Therefore, a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to rectify clerical error in Class 10^th mark sheet of petitioner by mentioning correct date of birth i.e. 28.12.1993 in place of 28.12.1990.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that mark sheets of Class 8^th and 12^th of petitioner records his date of birth as ‘28.12.1993’, which is his correct date of birth, however, in Class 10^th mark sheet issued by respondent No.2, date of birth of petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as ‘28.12.1990’. When the said mistake came to the notice of petitioner, he

¶28

¶29

immediately submitted representation before respondent No.2 for correction of his date of birth wrongly mentioned in the mark sheet of Class 10^th but the same has not been corrected so far. He submits that petitioner has been selected on the post of Sepoy in the Central Reserve Police Force and he is required to submit his original testimonials including mark sheet of Class 10^th . If petitioner will submit his educational testimonials bearing two different date of birth, on account of discrepancy/ mismatch in date of birth in testimonials, petitioner may be declared ineligible for the employment and may also be removed from service. He submits that there is no fault or negligence on the part of Petitioner, the error is on the part of Board in mentioning incorrect date of birth of petitioner and therefore, petitioner should not make to suffer for the fault or negligence on the part of respondent No.2 i.e. on account of wrong entry made in the mark sheet. Petitioner submitted representation before respondent No.2 for correction of his date of birth as recorded in Class 8^th and Class 12^th mark sheets, but till date no steps have been taken by respondent No.2. Hence, he prays that a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide representation dated 16.3.2021 (Annexure P-4) expeditiously and carry out correction in date of birth of petitioner in his mark sheet of Class 10^th (Annexure P-1).

¶30

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that no relief has been sought against respondent No.1.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that petitioner appeared in Class 10^th Exam in academic session 2009-10; mark-sheet of Class 10^th was issued to him in the year 2010 and till 2021 he did not bother to apply for correction of his date of birth in Class 10^th mark-sheet for last several years. Petitioner submitted an application for the first time with respondent No.2 on 16.3.2021 i.e. after lapse of about ten years from the date of issuance of Class 10^th mark-sheet. An application for issuance of correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet is dealt with in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur which contains a specific clause that if the correction is sought after a period of three years from the date of declaration of result, correction in the mark-sheet is not permitted. Since petitioner has not submitted any application for necessary correction of his date of birth in Class 10^th mark sheet within a period of three years from the date of declaration of result of Class 10^th , no relief as prayed for can be granted. In support of his contention, he places his reliance on the decision rendered in case of Sudhir Ram Bhagat v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur & another, reported in 2009 (3) CGLJ 103 as also on the order dated 8.2.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.706/2022 (Sulochana Sharma vs. State of CG & ors ) .

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents brought on record by respective parties.

¶34

¶35

Indisputably, petitioner appeared in the class-10th Board Examination from Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur in the year 2010 and mark-sheet was issued in the month of March, 2010. In the mark-sheet, date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as “28.12.1990”. Petitioner submitted an application for correction of his date of birth in the mark-sheet issued by the respondent No.2 on 16.3.2021 i.e. after lapse of about more than 10 years from the date of issuance of mark-sheet. In the application, petitioner pleaded a ground for seeking correction in the mark-sheet, to be based on the mark-sheet of primary school certificate examination, middle school certificate examination and higher secondary school certificate examination. Higher Secondary school certificate examination which is placed in record as AnnexureP2, is not issued by the same Board i.e. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur but the petitioner appeared in Class-12th examination from Chhattisgarh State Open School, Raipur, therefore, the entry of date of birth in the mark-sheet probably may be based on the information/particulars mentioned by the petitioner, in his application for appearing in the examination of Class-12th. The year in which petitioner participated in Higher Secondary School Certificate exam from Chhattisgarh State Open School, Raipur is of the year 2013. The petitioner might have again seen his Class-10th marksheet at the time of submitting the application for appearing in Class-12^th in the year 2012-2013, however, at that relevant time also petitioner has not submitted any application for

¶36

¶37

correction of date of his mark-sheet.

¶38

Petitioner has not offered any explanation of inordinate delay of more than 10 years in filing the application for correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet.

¶39

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jigya Yadav (minor) (through guardian/father Hari Singh) v. C.B.S.E.(Central Board of Secondary Education) & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3572 of 2019 decided on 3.6.2021 observed that correction of date of birth is permitted if application for correction is made based on any of public document. In case at hand, petitioner is not enclosed the copy of the birth certificate in support of his application.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed reply to the writ petition stating that according to the guidelines of the Board with regard to the correction in the date of birth can only be considered when application is filed within a period of 3 years from the date of issuance of the mark-sheet which is sought to be corrected. Further pleaded that after lapse of 3 years from the date of issuance of the mark-sheet, correction can only be done by way of filing civil suit for declaration. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in case of Sudhir Ram Bhagat v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha and Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha, decided on 1.7.2009.

¶41

In the matter of Board Of Secondary Education Of Assam vs Md. Sarifuz Zaman And Ors , reported in (2013) 12 SCC 408 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

¶42

¶43

“12. Delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation destroys the remedy itself. Delay amounting to laches results in benefit of discretionary power being denied on principles of equity. Loss of limitation resulting into depriving of the remedy, is a principle based on public policy and utility and not equity alone. There ought to be a limit of time by which human affairs stand settled and uncertainty is lost. Regulation 8 confers a right on the applicant and a power coupled with an obligation on the Board to make correction in the date of birth subject to the ground of wrong calculation or clerical error being made out. A reasonable procedure has been prescribed for processing the application through Inspector of Schools who would verify the school records and submit report to the Board so as to exclude from consideration the claims other than those permissible within the framework of Regulation 8. Power to pass order for correction is vested on a higher functionary like Secretary of the Board. An inaccuracy creeping in at the stage of writing the certificates only, though all other prior documents are correct in all respects, is capable of being. corrected within a period of three years from the date of issuance of certificate.

¶44

(emphasis supplied)

¶45

Three years period provided by the Regulation is a very reasonable period. On the very date of issuance of the certificate the concerned student is put to notice as to the entries made in the certificate. Everyone remembers his age and date of birth. The student would realize within no time that the date of birth as entered in the certificate is not correct if that be so once the certificate is placed in his hands. Based on the certificate the applicant would seek admission elsewhere in an educational institution or

¶46

¶47

might seek a job or career where he will have to mention his age and date of birth. Even if he failed to notice the error on the date of issuance of the certificate, he would come to know the same shortly thereafter. Thus, the period of three years, as prescribed by Regulation 3, is quite reasonable. It is not something like prescribing a period of limitation for filing a suit. The prescription of three years is laying down of a dividing fine before which the power of the Board to make correction ought to be invoked and beyond which it may not be invoked. Belated applications, if allowed to be received, may open a pandora's box. Records may not be available and evidence may have been lost. Such evidence-even convenient evidence- may be brought into existence as may defy scrutiny. The prescription of three years bar takes care of all such situations. The provision is neither illegal nor beyond the purview of Section 24 of the Act and also cannot be called arbitrary or unreasonable. The applicants seeking rectification within a period of three years form a class by themselves and such prescription has a reasonable nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. No fault can be found therewith on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

¶48

(emphasis supplied)

¶49

The coordinate Bench of this Bench in Sulochana Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in 2022 SCC Online Chh 400 , while dealing with the issue whether an incumbent would entitled to seek correction of date of birth in certificate by the Board after the period of limitation prescribed has held thus:-

¶50

“7. The fact that the respondent No.2-establishment has a guideline which provides for a mechanism for correction of the date of birth and the guidelines also

¶51

¶52

provide for a period within which the date of birth can be sought to be corrected. The guidelines speak of three years time within which a person can approach the authorities for correction of date of birth. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.2 after a gap of 20 years with practically no explanation whatsoever as to why she did not move an application earlier or what prevented her from moving an appropriate application earlier. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot be termed to be bad in law or arbitrary in any manner.”

¶53

In case of Rajbali Singh vs. Board of Secondary Education Bhopal reported in 2001 (2) MPLJ 276, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh laid down the ratio that the person sleeping over his right cannot be permitted to wake up on one fine morning and exerts his claim. Unless the requisite application is submitted within the prescribed period, the candidate has to suffer on ground of delay and laches. Referring to the provisions of M.P. Date of birth (Entries in the School Registrar) Rules, 1973, it was observed in Para-7 thus:-

¶54

“7…….It has been laid down therein that the prayer for rectification or correction of date of birth would not be accepted after three years. Submission of Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel is that in absence of any limitation in the Rules the Board could not have provided a period of limitation in the guidelines. In my considered opinion as the Rules do not deal with the period of limitation the Board has the authority to stipulate a time limit for correction of the date of birth and I do not perceive any error in such a provision.”

¶55

¶56

In case at hand, respondent No.2 herein has issued the guidelines which provide for mechanism for correction of date of birth. These guidelines also prescribe the period within which date of birth can be sought to be corrected. The guidelines speak of three years time within which a person can approach the authorities for correction of date of birth. Further, petitioner has failed to point out any Rules/By-laws of the Board enables the Board that an application for correction of date of birth in the mark sheet can be moved at any point of time.

¶57

Hence, in view of above discussions as also the decisions referred in preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner.

¶58

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to the competent civil jurisdiction for declaration of his date of birth if so advised.

¶59

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶60

Nisha

Kapil Prasad Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Prasad Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savita Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chartered Engeenering and Trading Enterprises Vs Union of India

Tarun Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aman Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunny Sanwra @ Raja Vs State of Chhattisgarh