the reason that technically the petitioner had not been declared failed and only his result had been withheld. Learned counsel submits that the father of the appellant under bona fide impression and without making such changes, which were not fraudulent in nature, in good faith, had filled up the form with minor changes, which in no way can said to give any advantage to the appellant, which he may not be entitled to in law and rather he has been disadvantaged by his date of birth having been recorded making him 25 days older as compared to the date of birth written in the 1972 form. Learned counsel submits that though the 1972 result, marksheet and certificate have not been cancelled, but the same have also not been given to the appellant and in view of the fact that acting on the basis of the 1973 result, the appellant, after acquiring higher qualifications, has also got a job, which would now be in jeopardy, if the action of the B.S.E.B. is not interfered with. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to a judgment dated 24.11.2015 passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 51056 of 2012, by which the cognizance taken by the Court against the appellant in the criminal case filed against him for such conduct, has been set aside.
