IMPORTANT POINT
Regulation 8 of the Regulations framed under the Assam Secondary Education Act confers a right on the applicant and a power coupled with an obligation on the Education Board to make correction in the date of birth within a period of three years from the date of issuance of certificate.

Headnote:EDUCATION-Assam Secondary Education Act, 1961-Section 24-Regulation 8-Mistaken date of birth-Application moved beyond three years from date of issuance of certificate by the Board, not liable to be entertained-Respondent, a student having taken his education in school, passed matriculation examination conducted by Board of Secondary Education in year 1991-Thereafter, he passed higher secondary examination and then B.Sc. examination in year 1998-Application moved to the Board in 1999, complaining that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in school records as 30-5-1974, while his actual date of birth was 16-8-1975-Mistaken date of birth, as forwarded by the school, had crept into Admit Card issued by the Board-Whether Board was justified in rejecting the application as filed beyond three years from date of issuance of certificate by the Board-(Yes).
       Held : Nobody can claim a right to have corrected an entry in a certificate solemnly issued by an educational institution that too the one enjoying the status of a statutory Board under the Act. The right of the applicant to have an error or mistake corrected is accompanied by a duty or obligation on the part of the Board to correct its records and the certificate issued by it. Not only it is a corresponding duty or obligation, it has also to be perceived as a power exercisable by the Board to correct an entry appearing in the certificate issued by it. People, institutions and government departments etc. - all attach a very high degree of reliability, near finality, to the entries made in the certificates issued by the Board. The frequent exercise of power to correct entries in certificates and that too without any limitation on exercise of such power would render the power itself arbitrary and may result in eroding the credibility of certificates issued by the Board. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the contention that the applicants seeking correction of entries in such certificates have any such right or vested right. (Para 10)
       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 high 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. (Para 12)

ORDER

Leaving granted in both the SLPs.

2. Common questions of law, in the backdrop of similar facts, arise for decision in these two appeals. It would suffice for our purpose to notice facts of one of the cases.

3. One of the respondents, a student, having taken his education in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, passed the matriculation examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, in the year 1991. Thereafter, he passed higher secondary examination and then the B.Sc. examination in the year 1998. When he filed the writ petition, he was undergoing a course of study in computers. At that point of time, on October 12, 1999, he moved an application to the Board complaining that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records as May 30, 1974, while his actual date of birth was August, 16, 1975. The mistaken date of birth, as forwarded by the school, had crept into the Admit Card issued by the Board. The writ-petitioner student pleaded that he did not realize the importance of the correct date of birth being entered into the school records, and therefore, he did not also realize the implications thereof until he was prompted in moving the application. The application moved by the respondent to the Principal of the school, was forwarded by the latter to the Board. The principal indicated that the age of the respondent was entered as 16.8.1975 in the admission register and other school records, but it was by mistake that while filling the form of the Board examination the date of birth was wrongly entered as 30.5.1974. The Principal described the mistake as clerical and recommended for its correction. As the Board did not take any decision on the application, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court.

4. The Board relied on Regulation 8 of the Regulations for Conduct of Examinations by the Board, (hereinafter the Regulations for short), framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 24 of the Assam Secondary Education Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act , for short) and submitted that an application moved beyond three years from the date of issuance of certificate by the Board was not liable to be entertained. The plea found favour with the High Court resulting into dismissal of the writ petition. A writ appeal was preferred by the respondent. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the relief sought for by the respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus to the Board. Feeling aggrieved, the Board has filed these appeals by special leave.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant-Board submitted that the Board was not interested in nullifying the relief allowed to the two respondents herein, but it was nevertheless interested in having the legal position settled inasmuch as the view of the law taken by the Division Bench has resulted in the Board being flooded with applications seeking rectifications in the dates of birth of the applicants as recorded in the certificates issued to them consequent upon their having cleared the examinations conducted by the Board. A possibility of unscrupulous applicants taking undue advantage of the liberal view taken by the High Court may result into non-genuine cases also being cleared whereon there would be difficult to keep a check. In view of the submissions so made, we propose to examine, deal with and settle the law as to the validity of 3 years period prescribed as outer limit for seeking the correction in the date of birth by reference to Regulation 8.

6. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that mainly two reasons have prevailed with the High Court in forming an opinion against the Board and allowing relief to the writ-petitioners. The High Court has held: firstly, that Section 24 of the Act contemplates Regulations being made only for facilitating the working and functioning of the Board for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act; t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document