Petitioner sought writ to correct name and date of birth in school records. Bench directed school authorities to consider fresh application with documentary evidence and provide an independent decision.
Petitioner directed to file fresh application with documents; authority to consider and decide independently.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5688 of 2021
==========================================================
VISHALKUMAR KANTIBHAI TUMBADIYA
Versus
GUJARAT SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY BOARD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DEVANGI SOLANKI for MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MEET SHAH for MR AD OZA(515) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for Respondent(s) No.2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 07/09/2022
ORAL ORDER
1 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“[A] THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to issued appropriate writ, order and directions and be pleased to direct the Resp. Nos.1 & 3 to carry out necessary corrections as prayed vide application dtd.15.1.2021 produced at Annex.A to this petition.
[B] THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and directions and be pleased to direct the Resp.No.3 – School to
Page 1 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
carry out necessary corrections in the School records as prayed vide application dtd.15.1.2021 and be further pleased to forward the same in prescribed form to the Resp. No.1 – Board;
[C] THIS HON’BLE COURT may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioner as prayed vide application dtd.15.02.2021 (Anne.-A) during the pendency and final disposal of this petition;”
2 With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3 Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Meet Shah for learned advocate Mr.A.D.Oza waives service of rule for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent No.2. Despite service of notice respondent No.3 – school has chosen not to appear. Therefore, the matter is taken up for hearing in absence of any representation of the school.
4 Heard Ms.Devangi Solanki for the petitioner, Mr.Meet Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent No.2.
5 It is the case of the petitioner that the
Page 2 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
petitioner wants necessary correction in the name as “Vishalkumar Kantilal Tumbadiya” instead of Vishnukumar Kantilal Tumbadiya and date of birth as 15.8.1990 instead of 1.6.1990 in school leaving certificate. Hence, the petitioner has made an application on 15.1.2021 to the respondents. However, the application made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 25.1.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that once the petitioner leaves the school, necessary corrections in the school record cannot be made.
6 Ms.Devangi Solanki, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that in the past in similar cases, co-ordinate benches exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issued necessary directions to the authorities for making necessary corrections in the school record.
6.1 Ms.Solanki, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court [1] in the case of Vasudev Prahladbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2019(2) GLR 1474 and [2] in the case of Muskanben Shabbirahemad Mansuri vs. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board decided on 22.2.2021 in Special Civil Application No.11510 of 2020 , and submitted that in similar set of facts, co-ordinate Bench had issued necessary directions to the respondent authorities for making necessary change in the record, including general
Page 3 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
register.
7 Learned advocate Mr.Meet Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.1 though opposed the petition vehemently, but could not point out from both the aforesaid judgments as to how case of the petitioner can be said to be different from one which was considered by the co-ordinate Bench. He could not dispute the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and submitted that appropriate order be passed in the facts of the case of the petitioner.
8 Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the record of the case, including the judgment cited by learned advocate for the petitioner. As learned advocate Mr.Shah appearing for the respondent could not point out that how the facts of the present case are different than the judgments cited by learned advocate for the petitioner. In the case of Muskanben Shabbirahemad Mansuri (supra), the coordinate Bench in paras 9, 10, and 11 held as under:
“9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record it transpires that correct date of birth of the petitioner is 04.09.1998 and name of the father of the petitioner is Shabbirahmed as per the birth
Page 4 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
certificate issued by the competent authority. It appears from the record that the registration date mentioned in the birth certificate i.e. 08.09.1998 is recorded by the school in the General Register, copy of which is placed on record at page 14. Thus, instead of correct date of birth as 04.09.1998, the respondent No.3 has recorded the date of birth as 08.09.1998. Similarly, the name of the father of the petitioner mentioned in the birth certificate is Shabbirahmed but it is wrongly mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate as Shabbirbhai. Because of the said mistake committed by the school authority - respondent No.3 in the General Register and School Leaving Certificate, the respondent No.1 Board has also mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner in the marksheet as 08.09.1998 and name of the father as Shabbirbhai. The petitioner has placed on record other documentary evidences including the Passport, Pan Card, AADHAR Card, wherein her correct date of birth and correct name of her father is mentioned. In spite of these documentary evidences, the respondent No.3 has rejected the request made by the petitioner vide impugned communication dated 17.08.2020, copy of which is placed on record at Annexure-A, page 12 of the compilation.
Page 5 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
10. This Court has considered similar type of issue in the case of Vasudev Prahladbhai Patel (supra) wherein this Court has considered the other decisions rendered by this Court and the Division Bench orders passed in Letters Patent Appeal and thereafter held that the birth certificate issued by the competent authority is having high evidentiary value and the said certificate is a statutory certificate. Therefore, the respondent No.3 has to consider the said certificate. This Court has also considered the issue with regard to the alternative remedy in para 10, which reads as under:
"10.The Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 24.11.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.239 of 2011, even after considering the provisions of alternative remedy under the concerned regulation, observed in Paragraph 11 as under:
"Para11. This Court is, therefore, left with two alternatives, first being that to relegate the appellant to the Civil Court for pursuing his cause while setting aside the order impugned and secondly, to set aside the order impugned and, instead of insisting the
Page 6 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
appellant to pursue alternative remedy, exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to issue a direction to the school authorities for making necessary correction, particularly when there is no dispute about the genuineness of the certificate of birth and the date of birth indicated therein. In our view, a citizen need not be made to run from pillar to post for such a genuine and petty cause and we deem it proper to opt for the second alternative in the peculiar facts of this case."
11. The issue involved in the present petition is covered by the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No.3 is hereby directed to make necessary change in their record including General Register and correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 08.09.1998 to 04.09.1998 and also correct the name of the father of the petitioner from Shabbirbhai to Shabbirahmed as per the birth certificate and issue fresh School Leaving Certificate and thereafter send the said details in the prescribed form to the respondent No.2 -
Page 7 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
District Education Officer. The respondent No.2 - DEO shall thereafter forward the necessary form and details to the respondent No.1. On receipt of the aforesaid material, respondent No.1 shall consider the request of the petitioner for change of birth date as well as name of father of the petitioner as prayed for in the application in mark-sheet of 10th and 12th and also issue fresh marks-sheet and certificate to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute.”
8.1 Considering the aforesaid observations, more particularly, considering the fact that the petitioner has already placed on record the documentary evidence in respect of his original name and date of birth, like Aadhar card, Pan Card, birth certificate and other documentary evdience which would indicate the name of the petitioner was Vishalkumar Kantilal Tumbadiya and in all those documents the date of birth of petitioner is stated to be 15.8.1990.
8.2 Hence taking into consideration the aforesaid documentary evidence coupled with the judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the
Page 8 of 9
C/SCA/5688/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022
petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the application of the petitioner on the basis of documentary evidence that the petitioner may produce once again and may take an independent decision in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is required to make a fresh application along with any additional documents if the petitioner is relying upon and if any such application is made, the authority may decide the same in accordance with law and as early as possible.
9 With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. Notice discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
P. SUBRAHMANYAM
Page 9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether school authorities are directed to correct name and date of birth in school records when supported by documentary evidence.
Whether the petitioner must file a fresh application with documentary evidence for consideration by respondent authorities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vasudev Prahladbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.Relied on¶30
Vasudev Prahladbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Muskanben Shabbirahemad Mansuri vs. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary BoardFollowed¶30
Muskanben Shabbirahemad Mansuri vs. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishalkumar Kantibhai Tumbadiya
Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board
Nirzar S. Desai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
