Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he had appeared in the High School Examination-2010 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh ( for short, the "Board") as a regular student. His result was declared in June, 2010. According to the petitioner, in all his school records including School Leaving Certificate of Class-V, School Leaving Certificate of Class-VIII and in the Transfer Certificate of Intermediate, his date of birth has been shown as 16.01.1994, however, in the mark-sheet of High School his date of birth is shown as 11.01.1996. On 11.10.2012 the petitioner has moved an application through the Principal of the concerned college for correction of his date of birth as 16.01.1994. However, the Board has not taken any step to correct his date of birth.

2. On 03.01.2014 learned Standing Counsel was directed to seek instruction in the matter.

3. On the instruction, learned Standing Counsel submits that under Regulation-7 of Chapter-III ( Part II-B) of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, two years' period is provided for moving such an application.

4. In the present case, the petitioner has moved the application only three moths beyond the period prescribed therefor.

5. It is stated that the petitioner comes from the rural background and he was not aware of the regulations, which provide the limitation of two years.

6. From the records it is evident that in all the previous certificates of the petitioner, his date of birth is shown as 16.01.1994. Thus, the mistake appears to be clerical one. It is not the case that the petitioner wants to get his age reduced by the correction, but his age would be enhanced. Thus, the intention of the petitioner does not appear to take undue advantage by moving such application. The application is evidently bona fide.

7. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with the similar facts and also the Regulation-7 in Special Appeal No. 1202 of 2010 ( Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and another), decided on 03rd August, 2010. The Court has found that Regulation-7 refers to correction in the certificate of passing and if there is any mistake in the record maintained by the Board, Regulation-7 would not be applicable. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the judgment of the Division Bench is quoted below:

"Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as under:-

"7. lfpo] ifj"kn dh vksj ls lQy mEehnokjksa dks ifj"kn~ dh ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k&i= fofgr izi= esa nsxk vkSj ckn esa mldh izfof"V;ksa esa dksbZ 'kqf) djsxk] c'krsZ fd izek.k&i= esa fdlh ,slh xyr izfof"V] fdlh vopkfjr fyfidh; Hkwy ;k yksi ds dkj.k ;k fdlh izsl fyfidh; Hkwy ds dkj.k dh xbZ gks tks vlko/kkuh ls ifj"kn ds Lrj ds ;k ml laLFkk ds] tgkaW ls vfUre ckj f'k{kk izkIr dh gks] Lrj ij vfHkys[k esa gks xbZ gksA ;g 'kqf) lfpo }kjk mlh fLFkfr esa dh tk ldsxh tcfd vH;FkhZ us lEcfU/kr ijh{kk ds izek.k&i= dks ifj"kn }kjk fuxZeu djus dh frfFk ls nks o"kZ ds vUnj gh fyfidh; =qfV dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq, lEcfU/kr iz/kkukpk;Z@dsUnz O;oLFkkid dks =qfV ds la'kks/ku gsrq izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fn;k gks vkSj mldh izfr iathd`r Mkd ls lfpo] ifj"kn~ dks Hkh izsf"kr dh gksA""

In the petition filed by the appellant, that plea was also taken before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Judge held that as the application was filed beyond the time and was not maintainable, and that the appellant herein may file a civil suit for declaration of his Date of Birth.

In the instant case, we find that Regulation 7, referred to above, refers to correction in the certificate of passing. There is no mistake in the certificate of passing. The mistake is in the records maintained by the Board. Therefore, the said Regulation would not be applicable so far as the case of the appellant is concerned. Once the respondents themselves had issued the certificate showing the Date of Birth of the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document