Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Satyaban Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa and others – Respondents
R.S.A. No.85 of 2017
Decided On : 21-04-2017
Date of Birth - Correction of Date of Birth - Regulation 39 of the Board of Secondary Education Regulation, 1955, Limitation Act, Orissa General Financial Rules - The court discussed Regulation 39 of the Board of Secondary Education Regulation, 1955, which states that the date of birth once entered in the Board’s records cannot be changed unless it is of the nature of clerical error or printing mistake. The court also referred to Article 58 of the Limitation Act and Rule 65 of the Orissa General Financial Rules, which provide limitations for obtaining a declaration and guidelines for altering the date of birth of a government servant respectively. The court highlighted the interpretation of these provisions and their application in the case, emphasizing the importance of timely application for correction of date of birth and the impact of inordinate delay in making such applications.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his correct date of birth and mandatory injunction after finding that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his certificate. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff's appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, Sambalpur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's suit for correction of date of birth was not maintainable due to the inordinate delay in making the application, as it was filed after 36 years of passing the H.S.C. Examination. The court also noted that the plaintiff's claim was not supported by substantial justice and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the correctness of the plaintiff's date of birth, the timeliness of the suit, and the application of relevant regulations and rules governing the correction of date of birth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inordinate delay in making the application for correction of date of birth, as well as the plaintiff's failure to provide timely evidence and the withholding of relevant documents, rendered the suit not maintainable. The court also emphasized the importance of timely application for correction of date of birth and the impact of inordinate delay in making such applications.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it did not involve any substantial question of law.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration that his date of birth is 13.03.1958 and mandatory injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was born on 13.03.1958. His parents got him admitted in U.P. School, Balbaspur (now U.G.M.E. School, Balbaspur) in Class-I. At the time of admission, his date of birth was correctly recorded as 13.03.1958 in the school admission register. Thereafter, he prosecuted his study in the Talab High School. After completion of H.S.C. Examination, he received the certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa in the year 1976. He found that his date of birth has been wrongly entered in the certificate as 13.03.1957 in place of 13.03.1958. Immediately, he wrote a letter on 10.05.1976 to the Secondary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack for correction of the date of birth. After his graduation, he joined as a junior assistant in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar on 26.06.1980. On 12.05.1985, he wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for correction of date of birth in his Service Book. But then the authorities did not correct his date of birth. He had also sent another letter on 12.05.1988 to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, he filed W.P.(C) No.16169 of 2010 before this Court challenging the wrong entry. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2011 granted liberty to avail the remedy available under the Specific Relief Act. After issuing notice under Sec.80 C.P.C. to the defendant nos.1 and 2, he instituted the suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sambalpur seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Though summons were issued to the defendant nos.1 and 2, but they had chosen not to contest the case and as such set ex-parte. The defendant nos.3, 4 and 5 entered appearance and filed their respective written statement. The specific case of the defendant no.3 is that on verification of the Tabulation Register and Certificate Register of the Board in respect of the candidates, it was found that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 13.03.1957. After 30 years of passing the H.S.C. Examination the claim of the plaintiff is not entertainable. The suit for correction of date of birth is filed after decades with ulterior motive to delay his superannuation. The defendant no.4 has reported that the date of birth of the plaintiff has been recorded in the Talab High School admission register as 13.03.1957 and not 13.03.1958. The plaintiff had produced the transfer certificate issued by Talab M.E. School bearing T.C. No.43 dated 07.07.1970 to take admission into Class-VII in Talab High School. He had prosecuted his study first in U.P. School, Balbaspur, then in Talab M.E. School, but did not disclose the date of birth recorded in the admission register of Talab M.E. School. He had suppressed the facts. He had never approached the Board authorities for correction of his date of birth. The entry in the Board certificate was based on the records produced by the High School from which the plaintiff was sponsored as a candidate for H.S.C. Examination. The plaintiff has filled up the application form for admission into the H.S.C. Examination in his own handwriting. No correction could be made at this stage. The entries made in the H.S.C. certificate of the plaintiff were based on records.
4. The defendant no.4 in his written statement has stated that the plaintiff was admitted in Class-VIII in Talab High School, Talab on 08.07.1970 whose date of birth was entered in the record as 13.03.1957. The plaintiff had never disputed his date of birth before him. So, the claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
5. The case of the defendant no.5 is that the plaintiff was admitted in Class-I in Balbaspur U.G.M.E. School, Balbaspur on 30.04.1963. His date of birth was entered in the admission register in serial no.4001 as 13.03.1958. He st
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
