Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA
ANAND SINGH – Appellant
Versus
U. P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the key points from the legal document provided:
The case involves a challenge to the rejection of an application for correction of the mother’s name in the academic certificates issued by the Board, based on the delay beyond the prescribed time limit (!) (!) .
The relevant regulation (Regulation 7) prescribes a three-year time limit for submitting applications for correction of entries in the certificates, except for spelling mistakes, which are subject to a different, more lenient proviso (!) (!) (!) .
The regulation distinguishes between corrections for clerical errors or omissions and corrections for spelling mistakes. Corrections related to clerical errors must be made within three years, but spelling mistakes in names can be corrected without such a time limit, provided the application is justified and bona fide (!) (!) .
The correction of the mother’s name, which was a spelling mistake, should not be strictly barred due to delay, especially when the Board itself has recognized no time limit for correcting spelling errors in names under the proviso (!) (!) .
The particulars in the certificate that are critical for admission or employment—such as date of birth, subjects, examination year, and division—are subject to the three-year correction limit. However, details like the name of the candidate or parents are less critical and should not be restricted by this time limit when requesting corrections based on spelling mistakes (!) .
The Court held that the rejection of the application solely on the grounds of delay was unsustainable, and directed the Board to reconsider the application, taking into account all relevant evidence and records, and to pass a fresh order within four months (!) .
The Court clarified that its interpretation applies only to corrections involving the name of the candidate or their parents, not other particulars that impact legal rights or eligibility (!) .
The appeal was allowed to the extent of these directions, and the previous order rejecting the correction due to delay was set aside (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points?
By the Court.—This special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8 January 2014.
The appellant, in the writ proceedings sought to question the legality of an order dated 11 October 2013 passed by the first respondent rejecting his application for correction of the name of his mother in the certificate issued by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on the ground that it was submitted beyond the prescribed period of three years. The appellant passed the High School examination conducted by the Board in 2006 from the Saraswati Vidya Mandir Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Deviganj, District Fatehpur. Prior thereto, the appellant completed his Junior High School studies from Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kirtikheda, District Fatehpur. According to the appellant, the name of his mother was recorded as Munni Devi in the record of the aforesaid Institution. It is stated that when the appellant took admission for High School studies, the name of his mother was recorded as Munni Devi in the scholar register and also in the Transfer Certificate issued by the Saraswati Vidya Mandir Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidy
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
