Disposed

Archana Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2009CWJC/12880/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of this writ petition concerning a discrepancy in the petitioner's date of birth between her school records and the matriculation certificate issued by the Board. The petitioner claimed 1972, while the certificate showed 1967. The Court ordered the school to forward admission records to the Board, which must then decide on re-issuing the certificate or informing the petitioner o

What did the court decide?

School to forward records to Bihar School Examination Board within two weeks; Board to re-issue matriculation certificate within three weeks or pass a reasoned order declining relief.

Archana Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.12880 of 2008
 ARCHANA KUMARI
 Versus
 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

¶2

For the Petitioner : M/S Ajay Kumar Thakur
 Imteyaz Ahmad.
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr. Satyabir Bharti.
 -----------

¶3

13.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for Bihar School Examination Board.

¶4

This Court is not persuaded of the need to issue notice to Respondent no. 5 at this stage in view of the nature of the order to be passed.

¶5

The controversy in this case relates to the date of

¶6

birth of the petitioner. Whether it be 15.6.1972 as claimed by her

¶7

or it be 15.6.1967 as stated in the matriculation certificate issued

¶8

to her by the Respondent-Board.

¶9

It appears that the Respondent-Board issued a registration certificate to the petitioner for the matriculation examination where her date of birth filled in hand was 15.6.1967 scored out and overwritten as 1972 also in words. It appears that some confusion has arisen on account of the same.

¶10

The contention of the petitioner is that she appeared

¶11

at the matriculation examination in 1986. Her age according to her claimed date of birth was 14 years more in consonance of the normal period of time when a candidate appeared in matriculation examination, when it works out to be 19 years on the basis of the date of birth sought to be suggested by the Board. The School

¶12

¶13

where she studied from Class VI up to Class X, i.e. Respondent no. 5, records her date of birth in the School records as 15.6.1972. In pursuance thereof her record both at the graduation level and at the LL.B. level records her date of birth as 15.6.1972. She has now been distressed by recording erroneous date of birth in the matriculation certificate.

¶14

The matter was adjourned for filing of counter affidavit by the Respondent-Board. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Board submits that he has received full instruction and can file a counter affidavit. He submits that the instructions are to the effect that her contention

¶15

with regard to her date of birth and the date when she appeared in the matriculation examination requires to be verified from the institution where she studied from Class VI to Class X. This Court finds it to be a very fair stand and does not need counter affidavit for this purpose.

¶16

This writ application is, therefore, disposed with direction that Respondent no. 5, on presentation of a copy of the present order before him within a period of two weeks, shall forward the necessary records with regard to the petitioner in his school showing her date of birth at the time of admission to the Respondent-Board. The Respondent-Board within three weeks after the receipt of such records from Respondent no. 5 and after examination of the same shall take an appropriate decision and shall proceed to issue necessary matriculation certificate afresh, if

¶17

¶18

required. In the event that Respondent-Board is satisfied that her date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate requires no correction it shall be obliged by a reasoned and speaking order after giving full opportunity to the petitioner in which the Respondent-Board shall opine that the relief as prayed for cannot be granted to be done within the same period.

¶19

The writ application stands disposed.

¶20

AKS/

¶21

(Navin Sinha, J.)

Archana Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thithar Sada Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Om Prakash Sinha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Raghubans Dubey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chhatradhari Sanskrit Prathmik Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anni Verma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kamla Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.